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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk