Peter Dimov wrote: >Have you tried? ;-) Nope, I'm afraid I'd mess it up - as in the point below.
>Nope. You still need the counter mutex penalty. See example 2, that modifies >two different shared_ptr instances, with well defined results. Those two >instances can well share a count. Ahhh..., I didn't see that. point: The reference count is per object allocated, not per pointer. >Yep. But a well designed program doesn't need this construct. The extra >overhead would only "help" badly designed programs, but everyone will have >to pay. Right, I was still operating under the idea that you could make it work with just one mutex per shared_ptr. >I'm pretty sure that there are programs where the unnecessary >synchronization overhead would be unacceptable. But these cases are much >rarer than one might think. Yeah, I'd have thought so too. But I'm currently sharing the QTs between threads and messed something up b/c the threaded version (with >1 thread) takes many times as long as the serial version... And I was tired of having to recompile pretty much everything in the project b/c I'd changed a basic container. That's another thread for another group. >Depends on what you mean by "a technical reason". It is very controversial >whether the cost of an extra template parameter can be considered a >technical reason. :-) Fair enough. Since writing template code is always a struggle between me and the compiler I can see the desire to avoid adding extra template parameters. TJ -- Trey Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] "... at this point, the elephant is looking like an irate Roseanne." -- Fran Drescher _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
