-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Chris Thomasson Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 7:18 PM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] I think using spinlocks to simulate an atomicshared_ptr isdeadlock-prone, or inefficient.

...

I read the stuff from Chris Thommason and I have to admit that I'm not too sure how I'd wrap shared_ptr with it to make this work.

Here is an alternative to shared_ptr:

http://appcore.home.comcast.net/vzoom/refcount/

This is my version of an atomically thread-safe reference counting

As a developer of an application using these techniques, shared_ptr<> has a lot of advantages. Can a class which has the same public interface as shared_ptr<> be written using your methods? Could boost::shared_ptr<> itself be rewritten to use your methods resulting in an atomic shared_ptr<>? -- George T. Talbot <gtalbot@locuspharma.com> that

covers both basic and strong thread-safety models. Parts of it can also be used in a signal handler, because it has 100% lock-free weak increments/decrements' and pointer swap operations. It amortizes lock actions from the first strong reference to an object X, down to the drop-to-zero condition of object X. What do you think?

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost