[boost] Re: shared_ptr/weak_ptr and thread-safety

From: Alexander Terekhov (terekhov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-03 11:38:28

"William E. Kempf" wrote:
[...]
> Not specifying the exact width
> of various types is not really something that I think most people would
> classify as "brain damaged."

That's not the only problem with MS-interlocked API. For example, for 
DCSI and DCCI things, all you need is "hoist-load" and "sink-store" 
barriers; a "full" acquire/release is an overkill, so to speak. Also, 
for "basic" thread-safe reference counting, you really want to have 
"naked" increments and either "naked" decrements [for the immutable 
stuff] or decrements with "acquire-if-min"/"release-if-not-min" 
memory synchronization semantics.

> 
> Now, can you provide documentation for the above, including preconditions,
> postconditions, etc. for each method?  

Do you mean refcount<>'s methods? atomic<> stuff? refs<>-thing?

A "man-pages"-like specification for plain C version of optionally 
non-blocking pthread_refcount_t without parameterization (I mean 
thread-safety and counter type) can be found here:

http://terekhov.de/pthread_refcount_t/draft-edits.txt

That's the only thing I have at the moment and I don't expect that 
I'll have more in the coming weeks.

regards,
alexander.