Re: [boost] [shared_ptr] Using inline assembler, Microsoft syntax in Linux, and shared pointers

From: Ovidiu Cristea (ocristea_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-26 13:13:46

Thanks for replying so fast!

I know this is a unusual case, but one that occurred nonetheless.

As I said, I had already created a simple test that seems to be OK, just 
wanted to know if there might be any other obvious (for you) pitfalls. 
I'll let you know if I find anything else, good or bad.

Since this seems to work, I can only hope there are no plans to 
discontinue this piece of code in future versions.

Thanks again for the clarifications.

Best regards,
   Ovidiu

Peter Dimov wrote:
> A very unusual situation. :-)
> 
> It wasn't tested as extensively as the others and there was no need for it 
> since CodeWarrior/Windows works with sp_counted_base_w32.
> 
> In principle, this is a violation of the One Definition Rule... In practice, 
> it should work.
> 
> It would probably be better to introduce an Intel-specific sp_counted_base 
> that uses its intrinsics. I don't know whether the Intel compiler for Linux 
> supports the _Interlocked* family, though; or whether the following 
> intrinsics:
> 
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Atomic-Builtins.html
> 
> that were originally introduced in icc/ia64 (and later adopted by g++ 4.1) 
> work under icc/x86. 
>