Re: [boost] Re: shifted_ptr<> w/ lock mechanism

From: Greg Colvin (Gregory.Colvin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-30 10:39:29

At 08:16 AM 1/30/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
>"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>> From: "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]>
>>>
>>> Would you indulge me and try the benchmark again with the enclosed
>>> shared_count patch applied and #undef BOOST_SP_USE_STD_ALLOCATOR?  I
>>> don't really know what's going on under the covers in the SGI
>>> allocator; this is basically just the same hack I threw at the problem
>>> years ago.
>>
>> I've taken the liberty to convert the patch into detail/quick_allocator.hpp.
>> #define BOOST_SP_USE_QUICK_ALLOCATOR to make shared_ptr use it.
>> shared_ptr_alloc_test.cpp has been updated, too. You can now compare
>> quick_allocator vs SGI std::allocator yourself. :-)
>
>I'm not all set up to run those tests and measure the times, which is
>why I was hoping Philippe would check it out.

It would be interesting to see the test results for
intrusive_ptr as well.