From: Maksym Motornyy (mmotorny_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-01 05:10:52
> That's a myth. Apart from copying elimination (small string
> optimization can be done in addition to COW for large strings),
> COW's msync is much more efficient (naked increments to begin
> with) than allocator's msync. Brain-dead implementations and
> "test harnesses" (gotw 45) don't really change the reality.
I have a little experience with multithreaded programming.
All the more isn't COW deserve to be part of Boost? (I don't insist
however :))