Subj : Re: A question about atomic_ptr
To   : comp.programming.threads
From : Peter Dimov
Date : Sun Apr 10 2005 05:16 pm

Chris Thomasson wrote:
>> Can I get the best of both worlds by providing the following two
>> methods in
>> shared_ptr:
>>
>> template<class T> class shared_ptr
>> {
>> // ...
>>
>>    shared_ptr<T> copy() const;
>>    void replace( shared_ptr<T> const & pt );
>> };
>>
>> with the guarantee that competing accesses to 'copy' and 'replace'
>> work (but
>> other competing accesses are still disallowed in order to avoid an
>> acquire except in 'copy')?
>
> You can. How are you going to allow for "competing access"? Are you
> using mutexs, or going for a lock-free method such as SMR?

I was thinking DWCAS or mutex pool... I'm new to these lock-free things. 
Need to read about SMR, I guess.

.