[boost] Re: [shared_ptr] Interlocked* - possible bug?

From: Alexander Terekhov (terekhov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-27 09:38:32

Ben Hutchings wrote:
[...]
>                                                      If atomic_read
> returns 0 that means the use count has dropped to 0 [*] and can never
> increase again, so it must be the latest version.  Otherwise weak_ptr
> makes a second test that is properly protected.  So it can never use
> an old value.
> 
> [*] I think this is right but I'm not certain that it can't return a
>     0 that the processor read during creation of an object that
>     uses enable_shared_from_this.

What makes you uncertain?

> 
> Having said all that, I feel the naming of functions may give a false
> sense of generality and encapsulation when they actually only work in
> the way they are being used currently.

You mean that 

  bool expired() {
    return lock();
  }

is better?

regards,
alexander.