From: Howard Hinnant (hinnant_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-04-25 09:45:32
On Apr 25, 2004, at 7:00 AM, John Maddock wrote:
> Maybe, but lets not forget that shared_ptr doesn't need a mutex at
> all, what
> it needs is an atomic counter (actually less than that, because we
> need the value of the counter just whether it's less than/greater
> than, or
> equal to zero).
shared_ptr has two counts which sometimes must both be incremented in
an atomic fashion.
> template <class T, bool threaded = BOOST_SP_DEFAULT>
> class shared_ptr;
> Which I think I'm right in saying would be std conforming (because
> permitted additional defaulted template parameters right?), and would
> quash any potential ODR violations.
Actually no, it would not be standard conforming for a hypothetical
std::shared_ptr, unless the standard granted specific permission for
this one template. (or specified the defaulted template in the first
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk