Subj : Re: A question about atomic_ptr
To   : comp.programming.threads
From : Chris Thomasson
Date : Sun Apr 10 2005 06:51 am

> As a practical matter, I'd think you'd want some mechanism to distinguish
> between shared global pointers and non-shared local pointers.

Agreed. For instance, I had to separate my atomic pointer into two 
distinguishable classes to address a highly critical performance issue:

shared_smr_ptr<T>
local_smr_ptr<T>


shared_smr_ptr<T> alone is "way to expensive" to be used for a general 
purpose smart pointer. I needed the ability to access the reference count 
without using expensive SMR API all the time, this is where local_smr_ptr 
saves the day.  Knowing that you don't have to use SMR in order to access 
the reference count on local_smr_ptr access actually makes SMR seem a bit 
less expensive than it actually is...  ;)

.