Re: [boost] intrusive_ptr design question

Subject: Re: [boost] intrusive_ptr design question
From: Frank Mori Hess (frank.hess_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-07-06 11:07:06

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Monday 06 July 2009, Zachary Turner wrote:
> You shouldn't have to store 2 function pointers for every
> intrusive_ptr object.  You should only have to store 2 function
> pointers per instance pointed to, and then 1 reference to some shared
> structure in each intrusive_ptr object.  Much like shared_ptr
> currently does.

You'd still need a pointer in every intrusive_ptr object to point at the 
shared_structure, plus you'd have to do dynamic allocation of the shared 
object.  That is never going to fly.

- From the "main reasons to use intrusive_ptr" section of its documentation:

"The memory footprint of intrusive_ptr is the same as the corresponding raw 
pointer;"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkpSExoACgkQ5vihyNWuA4UXtwCeOYuF/Jdap1ajhsd7rI0e9bYa
wY8AoMxu8bHr8+brBAMq+cGF+Ndkt2Nb
=WNH1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----