Re: [boost] [atomic] comments

Subject: Re: [boost] [atomic] comments
From: Tim Blechmann (tim_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-10-30 12:45:18

hi helge,

> > shared memory support:
> > the fallback implementation relies on the spinlock pool that also used
> > by
> > the smart pointers. however this pool is per-process, so the fallback
> > implementation won't work in shared memory. can this be changed/fixed?
> 
> fixing this would require a per-variable lock... depending on the platform
> this can have enormous overheads.

i've checked N3225, the most recent version of the draft that i have at hand 
at the moment. 29.4.4 tells me:

The implementation should not depend on any per-process state. This 
restriction enables communication by memory that is mapped into a process more 
than once and by memory that is shared between two processes.

cheers, tim