|
Boost : |
From: Talbot, George (Gtalbot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-10 10:20:42
My mistake.
So that seems like a bit of a useless guarantee--basically any structure
constructed with shared_ptr can only be read by the same thread that's
writing to the structure unless all of the pointer operations are
guarded with a mutex or spinlock, right?
Ignoring compare-and-swap, have you or anyone else experimented with
using a spinlock (as you mentioned previously) to remove the above
restriction? What would that do to performance and complexity? Could
you use a compare-and-swap type of operation to implement read/write
thread safety?
-- George T. Talbot <gtalbot_at_[hidden]> > -----Original Message----- > From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] > On Behalf Of Peter Dimov > Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 10:16 AM > To: boost_at_[hidden] > Subject: Re: [boost] boost::shared_ptr<>::compare_and_swap()-- > AmIinsaneforwanting this? > > Talbot, George wrote: > > > I'm sorry if I'm being too dense here. I think a section in the > > documentation saying exactly what is guaranteed and what isn't would > > help a lot. > > Here you go: > > http://boost.org/libs/smart_ptr/shared_ptr.htm#ThreadSafety > > _______________________________________________ > Unsubscribe & other changes: > http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk