Re: [boost] [atomic] ARM needs more eyes too

Subject: Re: [boost] [atomic] ARM needs more eyes too
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-12-22 10:24:04

On Saturday 22 December 2012 16:06:33 Tim Blechmann wrote:
> >> Also, how do people feel about using Boost.Atomic underneath
> >> 
> >> > shared_ptr?  (https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/5625 - again,
> >> > I've been using this for a long time and it seems to work.)  Maybe as a
> >> > non-default initially if we're nervous.  It might help to find any bugs
> >> > in Boost.Atomic...
> > 
> > In general I welcome this suggestion. However, shared_ptr probably should
> > not require linking to Boost.Atomic, so some header-only mode should be
> > provided by Boost.Atomic first.
> 
> i guess boost.atomic could be extended to work on all platforms that are
> currently supported by shared_ptr. the required subset could the be
> header-only ...

I was thinking about splitting the implementation into a guaranteed-to-be-
lock-free and the lock pool-based parts (the latter one requires linking to 
the library). The lock-free part should be accessible through a separate 
public header, it should not include the lock-based part. boost/atomic.hpp 
should still include both parts, thus providing the complete atomic<> 
implementation.

It's rather straightforward. Basically, base_atomic<> implementation should be 
moved from base.hpp into a separate header, and base.hpp should only contain 
forward declarations. Auto-linking code from config.hpp should be extracted as 
well and only included when the lock pool-based implementation is included.