Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: [boost] Fw: [atomic] review results
From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-11-07 16:15:43

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Dimov
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 22:38
To: Helge Bahmann
Subject: Re: [boost] [atomic] review results

Helge Bahmann wrote:

> yes makes sense -- there was a concern raised by Andrey Semashev that the
> spinlock pool as implemented and used by shared_ptr presently may fail on
> Windows due to the pool being non-unique (not had a chance to test this
> yet),
> and I have found a way to produce a similar failure using dlopen, atomics
> private to shared libraries and RTLD_LOCAL -- currently I am therefore
> leaning on creating a shared library just for the spinlock pool, but since
> you wrote the initial implementation maybe you could comment as well?

This is a problem in principle, but requiring all users of shared_ptr to
link to a shared library is a non-starter. I wouldn't use such a shared_ptr,
and I doubt many others will. And I wouldn't be surprised if this sentiment
applies to Boost.Atomic as well.

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