Re: [boost] [shared_ptr] possible bug in sp_counted_base_cw_ppc.hpp

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-11 03:12:39

Joaquín Mª López Muñoz wrote:
> I think that the functions
>
> atomic_increment
> atomic_decrement
> atomic_conditional_increment
>
> should be marked as inline, as they are defined in a header file. This
> is causing multiple definition problems, see for instance
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6eub2

Yes, you are right. I'd fix it but I don't know whether "inline" needs to go 
before or after "asm". ;-) Rene?