[boost] Re: Re: No more tree_traits<> dependencies under placed_ptr<>

From: Philippe A. Bouchard (philippeb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-03 20:55:44

"Larry Evans" <jcampbell3_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Philippe A. Bouchard wrote:
>  > "David B. Held" <dheld_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>  >
>  >>"Philippe A. Bouchard" <philippeb_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>  >>
> [...]
>
>  > I'm ready in one hand, but on the other garbage collection is not
>  > yet.  I'm still persuated consecutive deallocations could be
>
> What are "consecutive deallocations"?  Do you mean to accumulate the
> deallocations tasks to a certain threshold and then execute them all
> at once?

If you allocate a container for example:
list<int> l(100);

The information of each node in the list will be placed consecutively in the
system memory map.  Consecutive lookups to that table could be accelerated
because the information of those allocated block are following each other.

[...]

>  > What about the others?
>  >
>
> Based on the lack of response to my other postings about collecting
> cycles, I have my doubts whether boost would be interested in yet
> another smart pointer.  I could be wrong.

IMO Boost would be really powerful having those little garbage collections
techniques: swapped memory, cyclic_ptr and accelerated container allocation
/ deallocation.  Responses are always appreciated of course.  I won't bite.

Philippe A. Bouchard