From: Larry Evans (cppljevans_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-15 18:44:36
On 11/15/2003 01:48 PM, Philippe A. Bouchard wrote:
> Larry Evans wrote:
>>requires synchronization for decrement of reference count.
>>The cost is extra memory in the pointers.
> Is this a "probabilistic" solution or will it always work?
AFAICT, it'll always work. This is because instead of accessing
the pointee, only the smart pointer is accessed. I'm assuming that
the smart pointers are in the same thread; hence, there's no need
to synchronize. Only when a smart pointer is destroyed does
the pointee need to be accessed.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk