Subj : Re: A question about atomic_ptr
To   : comp.programming.threads
From : Chris Thomasson
Date : Mon Apr 11 2005 08:07 pm

> This is about local_shared_ptr, not about copy/replace. The
> local_shared_ptrs in an ownership group (which needs to be local to a
> specific thread) use a local unsynchronized reference count to keep track 
> of
> their single shared_ptr-like reference into the shared_ptr group. ChrisX 
> got
> it right, but I still think that there's no need to acquire in the
> increment, it's an ordinary 'add_ref_strong'.

If add_ref_strong already provides the necessary memory barriers you would 
be ok. However, explicit acquire/release semantics would be necessary wrt 
copy/replace...

.