←back to thread

271 points mithcs | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.259s | source
Show context
woodruffw ◴[] No.45953391[source]
Intentionally or not, this post demonstrates one of the things that makes safer abstractions in C less desirable: the shared pointer implementation uses a POSIX mutex, which means it’s (1) not cross platform, and (2) pays the mutex overhead even in provably single-threaded contexts. In other words, it’s not a zero-cost abstraction.

C++’s shared pointer has the same problem; Rust avoids it by having two types (Rc and Arc) that the developer can select from (and which the compiler will prevent you from using unsafely).

replies(13): >>45953466 #>>45953495 #>>45953667 #>>45954940 #>>45955297 #>>45955366 #>>45955631 #>>45955835 #>>45959088 #>>45959352 #>>45960616 #>>45962213 #>>45975677 #
saurik ◴[] No.45953667[source]
I'd think a POSIX mutex--a standard API that I not only could implement anywhere, but which has already been implemented all over the place--is way more "cross platform" than use of atomics.
replies(2): >>45953901 #>>45957239 #
1. wat10000 ◴[] No.45957239[source]
If you're targeting a vaguely modern C standard, atomics win by being part of the language. C11 has atomics and it's straightforward to use them to implement thread-safe reference counting.