From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-10 18:34:13
"William E. Kempf" <wekempf_at_[hidden]> writes:
> No, I was asking anyone interested in responding, and you're certainly
> not wasting your breath. I think I reached a compromise on these
> issues/questions, and would appreciate your response (it's in another
>> Allocation can be pretty darned efficient when it matters. See my
>> fast smart pointer allocator that Peter added to shared_ptr for
> It's not just the efficiencies that concern me with dynamic
> allocation. It's the additional points of failure that occur in this
> case as well. For instance, check out the article on embedded coding
> in the most recent CUJ (sorry, don't have the exact title handy).
> Embedded folks generally avoid dynamic memory when ever possible, so
> I'm a little uncomfortable with a solution that mandates that the
> implementation use dynamic allocation of memory. At least, if that's
> the only solution provided.
"What Peter said."
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk