Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
Do I understand the new Std right that shared_ptr is not required to use a reference count? Only that it is likely that it is implemented this way?
I could imagine an implementation that uses a hidden linked-list somehow. In N3291 “20.7.2.2.5.(8) shared_ptr observers [util.smartptr.shared.obs]” The note says
[ Note: use_count() is not necessarily efficient. — end note ]
which gave me that idea.
You’re right, nothing in the spec requires the use of an explicit “counter”, and other possibilities exist.
For example, a linked-list implementation was suggested for the implementation of boost’s
shared_ptr; however, the proposal was ultimately rejected because it introduced costs in other areas (size, copy operations, and thread safety).