[C++-sig] shared_ptr vs. intrusive_ptr

[Ravi]

On Monday 21 July 2008 10:50:45 Jeff Webb wrote:
> Any comments?  Surely someone has looked at the memory usage of shared_ptr.
>  I'm not asking someone to verify the overhead down to the byte, but I
> would like to have confirmation that the numbers I posted are what one
> would generally expect, and that there is some motivation to pursue an
> alternative implementation in certain cases.  If I am totally off-base
> here, or if no one else is interested in this issue, then I don't see any
> point in posting my proposed solution for review.

I am extremely interested in this. The numbers are what I'd expect as well. 
Even if you finally end up not posting a nice clean solution, I'd like to see 
some dirty version of it (even if only over private email); I suspect that 
many others hold similar views but do not reply on the foum as this sort of 
reply is sometimes considered mere noise (since merely expressing interest 
adds nothing to the discussion).

Regards,
Ravi

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/cplusplus-sig/attachments/20080721/72136d3e/attachment.htm>