Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Bergman (davidb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-01 17:24:11


It is not about me believing that Carlo's tool is supposed to demangle
C++ names, it is a fact, or, what do you think it is supposed to do?

That is what I meant by the focusing on that functionality, instead of
on memory allocation.

And, you do have (Boost) muscles, which was underlined by you telling me
to cool down, when I suggested that tools should focus on the prime



-----Original Message-----
From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of David Abrahams
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 3:14 PM
To: boost_at_[hidden]
Subject: Re: [boost] Demangler; Getting there...

From: "David Bergman" <davidb_at_[hidden]>

> Dave,
> There is no need to cool me; I appreciate that Carlos tool will be
> used in memory critical situations, and that there could be reasons to

> be cautious with memory allocation.
> I do not want a Boost.Demangle to use allocator parameters without at
> least a discussion.

That's fine, and it's a lot different from calling for "someone with
muscle" to step in so that "we can have tools that do what [you think]
they are supposed to do".

> I saw a proposal using streams, which at least would void the need to
> do the "external" allocation for the string object. The internal
> memory management, necessary for the demangling process, is a
> different story. Unfortunately, stack allocation, as suggested by
> someone, would probably not be a good choice; the debugging might be
> needed in tight stack situations, such as deep recursions.

On lots of platforms, the stack and heap come out of the same pool, so
there's no distinguishing "tight heap" from "tight stack".

> The *only* solution I see is to preallocate memory for internal
> purposes, no matter what target platform and processor architecture; I

> might need some further insight here, since you said there are lots of

> possible approaches.

Well, allocators could be used to make preallocated memory available, if
that's your preferred solution. As I said before, I'm not convinced it's
the right answer, but I don't see why it's neccessarily wrong (yet),

           David Abrahams * Boost Consulting dave_at_[hidden] *

Unsubscribe & other changes:

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at