On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Frank Mori Hess<frank.hess@nist.gov> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Monday 06 July 2009, Zachary Turner wrote:
You shouldn't have to store 2 function pointers for every intrusive_ptr object. You should only have to store 2 function pointers per instance pointed to, and then 1 reference to some shared structure in each intrusive_ptr object. Much like shared_ptr currently does.
You'd still need a pointer in every intrusive_ptr object to point at the shared_structure, plus you'd have to do dynamic allocation of the shared object. That is never going to fly.
- From the "main reasons to use intrusive_ptr" section of its documentation:
"The memory footprint of intrusive_ptr is the same as the corresponding raw pointer;"
Ok, so let me rephrase then: Is there a case to be made for a more flexible shared_ptr (either through modification or through a new class addition) that allows one to provide custom reference counting semantics much the same way that shared_ptr allows one to provide custom deletion semantics?