From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-12-05 12:50:57
--- In boost_at_[hidden], scleary_at_j... wrote:
> Maybe. If you have small object sizes, you can cut in underneath
> overhead of most system-supplied allocators. This is because these
> allocators have to store the size of the block along with the
block, so for,
> say, int-sized objects, you get 50% wasted memory. So once you
> FirstArraySize/2 chunks from a pool, your memory waste at worst-
case is the
> same as the system memory waste, until you start deallocating.
All this is good documentation of usage considerations :)
> > That's the point isn't it? It really is magic!
> It should be easy to use, but IMO memory allocation is not a huge
> in real-world programs. In my mind, pools should be used more for
While I might agree that many applications do not have performance
issues, for many "real-world" applications memory management is a
huge factor in performance. Products like smart heap wouldn't exist
if everyone could get by with the usual performance....
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk