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 objects.
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.