[boost] Re: Smart Pointer Timing Test Results

From: Boris Fomitchev (fbp_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-01-31 19:51:02

Oups - sorry !

What I was speaking of was actually "faster shared ptr"
implementation by Dave Abrahams - it has same size as the original one
and no other penalties compared to it.

Original linked_list posted here introduces extra size, extra copy penalty
and extra synchronization congestion on link modifications so I would
not consider it as good way to fight slow new().

To fight new(), shared_ptr may use allocator<T> (if they happy to have SGI
allocator<>),
or use Dave's implementation.  I think the latter is better.

-Boris.

Miki Jovanovic wrote:

> "boris fomitchev" <fb-_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > What drawbacks ? I see only advantages -
> > 1) it bypasses global memory manager (if you need synch, you add one
> to
> > the
> > free list only). Or do you mean one still has to implement sync ? This
> > is not a drawback of the approach, it's implementation issue.
> > 2) it speeds up the allocation and uses the least amount of memory
> > possible.
>
> I am not knocking the linked pointer down, but just pointing it is not
> best for every test case. If you want a list form, what I think is
> certain from all of our discussion is:
> 1) it has slowest copy opperation
> 2) it is approx. three times larger then intrusive ptr (3 words vs 1)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Miki Jovanovic.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Want to send money instantly to anyone, anywhere, anytime?
> You can today at X.com - and we'll give you $20 to try it!  Sign
> up today at X.com.  It's quick, free, & there's no obligation!
> http://click.egroups.com/1/332/1/_/9351/_/949354572/
>
> eGroups.com Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/boost/
> http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications