Re: [boost] Atomic Shared Ptr

Olaf van der Spek wrote:

On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 10:49 PM, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:

...

I made it a bit more complex:

Hi Peter,

Wow, that was fast. Thanks!

You're welcome. :-)

...

The reason it was so simple was because it was using the already existing atomic functions. And no, it's not lock-free. Lock-freedom requires significantly more complexity (and a double-width CAS).

Why not improve the existing functions and keep using those?

Since atomic_shared_ptr is a separate type, there's room for it for a spinlock, which on balance is a bit better than using a separate spinlock pool as the free functions do.