Boost logo

Boost :

From: brass goowy (brass_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-18 18:13:28

Emil Dotchevski wrote: >> 2. shared_ptr<> may be replaced by intrusive_ptr<> or home made equivalent. >> This (a) reduces dependency on other Boost part (shared_ptr does depend on >> quite few other libs) and (b) the atomic locking used by shared_ptr would be >> eliminated. This would help a little bit on multiprocessor systems - lock >> may be hundredths of cycles and during the time access to the memory bus is >> disabled. >(a) is a valid concern, OTOH shared_ptr is such a low level component >of Boost that -- as careful as I am in avoiding physical coupling -- I >don't consider it a real dependency; rather, it's a tool for avoiding >dependencies. Any reason for not using intrusive_ptr? Shared_ptr may be a low level part of Boost, but I'm not sure it should be lower level than this library. A library like this is overdue in my opinion. Brian Wood Ebenezer Enterprises

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at