Boost logo

Boost :

From: scleary_at_[hidden]
Date: 2002-11-11 09:05:06

> Can anybody shed light on why fast_pool_allocator benefit ratio is so
> for different compilers ?

It's because the malloc() and new speeds differ by compiler. If you're
really interested, there's an outdated article in WDJ April '97 that
compares malloc() and new speeds of several compilers: VC++ 4.2 was slowest,
Borland C++ 5.1 was faster, and Watcom C++ 10.6 and Symantec C++ 7.2 the
fastest. Of course, these are all *old* compilers! :)

As John pointed out, you're not going to see much benefit (if any) when the
standard library contains a pool allocator itself (as does STLport and


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