From: Greg Colvin (Gregory.Colvin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-11 22:03:53
At 02:30 PM 08/11/2002, Philippe A. Bouchard wrote:
>> As for the implementation, I think there are better approaches that
>> would cause no penalty for get(). The usual trick is to use size-
>> segregated storage pools set up so that one can get from an interior
>> pointer to an object header very quickly. The Boost pool implementation
>> can probably be tweaked for this purpose. Then a mumble_ptr<T> can just
>> store a proper T*, so get() has no overhead, and the arithmetic to
>> access the count is paid for only when needed.
>Uhh... pool is an accelerated memory allocator, but still is a memory
>allocator. If we would use the standard malloc(), reconstruction of
>containers would be like allocating a separate reference count. Also get()
>is not that slow: 1 more second for 1000 sorts of a 10000 element container.
I'm not sure what you mean by "reconstruction of containers."
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk