4 ms·

I think yours is a much cleaner design. In the original plan, if the owning thread just set the special bit, but before that set is propagated, another thread d

I think yours is a much cleaner design. In the original plan, if the owning thread just set the special bit, but before that set is propagated, another thread drops the shared refcount to zero, the object would never be released, would it? EDIT: never mind the question, I just read that the special bit is atomic.

a1369209993 5y ago
Having been pointed to the actual paper[0] by Someone[1], the special bit (effectivly a local-refcount-is-nonzero flag) is in the same atomic word as the shared refcount, which I missed from the description of the python implementation. The shared refcount can go negative, but the (shared refcount,local-is-nonzero) tuple can never be (0,false) while the object is referenced. 0: https://sci-hub.se/https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3243176.3243195 https://sci-hub.se/https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3243176.32... 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28883218 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28883218 (seriously, upvote this; it should be higher in the list of responses, since it actually properly refutes my original comment)