Subject: Re: [boost] [atomic] comments
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-11-01 14:54:19
On Tuesday, November 01, 2011 19:29:50 Helge Bahmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 01 November 2011 19:08:20 Andrey Semashev wrote:
> > Lock-based IPC can be much more efficient than socket-based.
> Well then create a shared memory region and use explicit locking. This is
> even more efficient than the many implicit locks in miniscule atomic
> See, by *not* exporting the spinlock of the fallback path of atomic<>
> objects I just made your IPC even more efficient.
That's arguable but I caught your drift. Let's say
boost::interprocess::atomic<> will make me happy.
> > GCC has the luxury of a shared runtime which can provide process-wide
> > table of spinlocks. Boost.Atomic is header-only, so in multi-module
> > applications this table has to be exported so that all modules use the
> > single table. I mentioned that in the review. Do you have ideas of how
> > to achieve that? Most obvious would be to link to Boost.Atomic
> > dynamically...
> the same way shared_ptr treats its spinlock pool (template specialization,
> and I guess this leads to a symbol with virtual linkage, the instances all
> of which are collapsed into a single instance by the run-time linker)
It doesn't work on Windows. shared_ptr is fine there because it actually uses
real atomic ops on that platform. IIUC, Boost.Atomic cannot be saved by that.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk