Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Atomic caching of smart pointers
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2024 13:15:37 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <vc7f99$2atht$6@dont-email.me>
References: <vc7ahq$2akr4$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2024 22:15:38 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="78a7b50be27a8595bbf19a3d12d98608";
	logging-data="2455101"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+H6xzIl7qCcxQMOK6rTZQgYjwnOxFoPYI="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:8zXpoUZU9SbE5AdeD05cKnlp+f0=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vc7ahq$2akr4$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 1491

On 9/15/2024 11:54 AM, Paavo Helde wrote:
[...]
> So, what do you think? Should I just use std::atomic<std::shared_ptr> 
> instead? Any other suggestions? Did I get the memory order parameters 
> right in compare_exchange_weak()?

Keep in mind that you need to make sure that 
std::atomic<std::shared_ptr> is actually lock-free...

Make sure to investigate is_always_lock_free on your various arch's:

https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/atomic/atomic/is_always_lock_free