== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s article > On 11/22/10 7:27 AM, dsimcha wrote: > > == Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s > >> Thanks for taking the time to build a credibla baseline. A lot of this > >> depends on the perspective. We're looking at a 2.9x slowdown after all. > > > > Right, but this isn't a 2.9x slowdown in real world code. It's a 2.9x > > slowdown in > > a synthetic benchmark that does nothing but increment and decrement > > reference > > counts. Real world code would likely have a loop body and stuff. That's > > why I > > consider it minor. > I think the cost is close to the real cost of copying a refcounted > object. Experience with refcounted languages has shown that copies do > impact the bottom line considerably. I wouldn't haste to discount a 2.9x > factor. > Andrei
Ok, if the destructor issue needs to be solved for the general case anyhow, then how about making it configurable with a default of non-atomic? If you want to share a ref counted object across threads and be responsible for your own higher level synchronization issues, you use atomic ref counting. If you want to create a shared wrapper, you make it use atomic under the hood. If you're not sharing the structure across threads, you stick with the default.
