Subject: Re: [boost] [shifted_ptr] Review Request
From: Olaf van der Spek (olafvdspek_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-04-06 05:14:06
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 10:51 AM, Phil Bouchard <philippe_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 4/6/2011 1:08 AM, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 3:15 AM, Phil Bouchard<philippe_at_[hidden]> Â wrote:
>>> - shared_ptr<> Â shouldn't be used for performance critical applications
>> Why not?
> You'll find a comparison in speed of all smart pointer types here and you
> will see "special" & "simple" counted being slower than intrusive_ptr:
> All tests were run on a PII-200 running Windows NT version 4.0
IMO that means the results are meaningless.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk