[boost] Re: new approach to smart ptrs -- no new()s is good news

From: Beman Dawes (beman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-01-30 12:13:46

At 10:54 AM 1/30/00 -0500, Dave Abrahams wrote:

>on 1/30/00 10:46 AM, Gavin Collings at gcollings_at_[hidden]
wrote:
> ...
>>                            Shared            Linked
>> Initial Construction      2900 +/- 70       -30 +/- 50
>> Copy Operation              62 +/- 13       119 +/-  9
>> 
>> Then the figure 2900 / (119 - 62) = 50 (or worst case 22 at the
>> extremes of the error bands) gives the number of copy operations
needed
>> before the increased copy time for linked pointer outweighs the
initial
>> overhead of allocating the reference count on the heap.
>
>Greg,
>
>I really think it's time to trot out your new implementation which
uses
>deque so we can test against that (I'm thinking the allocation cost
will be
>much lower since the deque works like a pool allocator). If you need
help
>finishing it, please call on me.

I would like to see an invasive smart pointer included in the test
timings.  (I have shared_in_ptr<> available if you need one.)  My
guess is that many people who care deeply about performance will
prefer an invasive smart pointer as both fast and small.

--Beman