On 01/12/2005 08:03 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: [snip]
Note that in the case of immutable managed objects, "use_count_. decrement()" can be replaced by msync::none version (decrement() is a shortcut for decrement(msync::acq, msync::rel) but increments are all "naked"). Msync on self_count_ can be relaxed a bit as well. This can make quite a difference in performance.
I'm a thread novice, so forgive me if this is dumb question, but why are increments "naked" and what does "naked" mean? One reason I'm interested is that IIUC, weighted reference counting doesn't require any synchonization on increments, but does require them on decrements. See the [lins*] references on: http://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/people/staff/rej/gcbib/gcbibL.html Thus, wouldn't weighted refcounts also make quite a difference in performance? However, the cost for the weights is 1 refcount for each smart pointer, or something like that.