Re: [boost] Re: Review Request: cyclic_buffer

From: Howard Hinnant (hinnant_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-11 18:18:23

On Wednesday, June 11, 2003, at 05:55  PM, Dave Gomboc wrote:

> Why is
> a deque inadequate?

deque is more expensive than a resizing circular buffer in both 
performance and code size.  One also can not control *when* deque will 
allocate as one can with a resizing circular buffer.  In a nutshell, a 
resizing circular buffer is often a better deque than std::deque is. 
;-(  A resizing circular buffer is absolutely awesome when plugged into 
std::queue.  If your queue on average doesn't constantly grow, a 
resizing circular buffer is efficient, predictable and safe.  A 
std::deque in std::queue will likely continually rellocate buffers as 
it drops one off one end and adds one to the other (and at annoyingly 
unpredictable times if you're doing real-time).

-Howard