Puneet Jain wrote:

I am a new user of boost pointers and was wondering about the thread safety in boost shared and intrusive pointers.

After reading some eariler posts and the current documentation, I am little confused. As per current documentation shared pointers thread safety in shared pointers is on the lines of STL and thus they are not thread safe for writing. But I am pretty sure I read in one of the posts that shared pointer is thread safe for all operations. Also, looking at the operator= and swap, it seems there could be some thread safety issues.

shared_ptr offers "basic thread safety", also known as "as thread safe as an int". These are the same guarantees that the POSIX memory model gives for built-int types such as int: concurrent reads are safe, concurrent writes to different objects are safe. "Strong thread safety" (concurrent writes, concurrent reads+writes are safe) is more expensive, harder to implement, and hard to use correctly. Consider this code: // thread A p.get(); // thread B p.reset(); This is obviously invalid under basic: p.reset() writes p. But it is also invalid under strong: p.reset() may delete the pointer returned by p.get() in mid-flight, which according to the standard is undefined behavior (and on some mainframes even looking at such a pointer causes a hardware trap.) A less exotic example could be Base * q = p.get(); // p.get() returns a Derived* or p->f(); both of which may fail on "ordinary" hardware.

Also, I have my own counted_base which I use in intrusive pointer. If my understanding is correct, to ensure thread safety, if I ensure add_ref and release_ref operations are atomic, I am pretty much covering all the bases.

If by "thread safety" you mean "strong thread safety", then no. intrusive_ptr hasn't been designed for strong thread safety. By changing swap() to use three atomic exchanges you may be able to achieve strong thread safety, but I haven't verified this in detail. Are you sure that you need strong thread safety?