From: Maksym Motornyy (mmotorny_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-01 05:10:52
> That's a myth. Apart from copying elimination (small string
> optimization can be done in addition to COW for large strings),
> COW's msync is much more efficient (naked increments to begin
> with) than allocator's msync. Brain-dead implementations and
> "test harnesses" (gotw 45) don't really change the reality.
I have a little experience with multithreaded programming.
All the more isn't COW deserve to be part of Boost? (I don't insist
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk