Subject: Re: [boost] Fw: [atomic] review results
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-11-08 14:26:52
On Tuesday, November 08, 2011 21:16:51 Peter Dimov wrote:
> Andrey Semashev wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 08, 2011 13:19:22 Peter Dimov wrote:
> > > "Doesn't support multi-module applications" is not the same as not
> > > supporting sharing an atomic between DLLs. Many multi-module
> > > applications
> > > will never need to do that. I can't think of an example that isn't
> > > either
> > > contrived or a bad idea.
> > Yes, I meant atomic<> crossing DLL boundaries, of course. However, I
> > don't find such use cases contrived or bad.
> Can you give an example?
Reference counting? A library might return a smart pointer to a structure with
a reference counter. Linking reference counting methods or making them virtual
may be undesirable to allow inlining.