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.
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
> that were originally introduced in icc/ia64 (and later adopted by g++ 4.1)
> work under icc/x86.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk