27 Sep
2004
27 Sep
'04
11:56 a.m.
John Torjo wrote: [...]
lock() calls InterlockedCompareExchange (too bad it's fully fenced) if refcount isn't 0. Again, it can't see "false" zero.
of course - with the change I suggested ;)
Really?
I wanted to say that the original implementation (http://www.pdimov.com/cpp/shared_count_x86_exp2.hpp) has a bug. Take a look at it please.
The site seems to be inaccessible. Are you sure that its lock() doesn't call InterlockedCompareExchange when it sees not expired refcount? regards, alexander.