Re: [boost] Boost memory management guidelines

From: E. Gladyshev (egladysh_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-29 22:26:19

--- Gregory Colvin <gregory.colvin_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Friday, Aug 29, 2003, at 18:16 America/Denver, E. Gladyshev wrote:

> There is a tradeoff between possibly better performance and possibly
> unwanted dependancies.

This is why we call them guidelines for now. 
It is up to the developer to consider tradeoffs and make decisions.

> 
> > ...
> >> * parameterize only when there is a clear advantage to doing so
> >
> > I'd modify it to
> >
> > * Consider parametrization if your library is to be available
> >   for embedded or non-traditional platfroms.
> 
> Even on "traditional" platforms there may reason to parameterize, and
> there may be alternatives to parameterization even on embedded plaforms.

OK,
* Consider parametrization, especialy if your library is to be available
  for embedded or non-traditional (like DSP, etc.) platfroms.

I think this item will make you think twice before hiding 
boost::signal's allocator.

> 
> >> * use the standard parameterization mechanisms (Allocator) when
> >>    choosing to parameterize
> >
> > I'd add to it
> > * Follow boost::allocator specification for allocator parameters
> 
> Which specification is that?  There are several here:
> http://boost.org/libs/pool/doc/interfaces.html

I'd vote for something compatible with STL allocators.
So that they can be used with containers directly.
Perhaps boost::allocator can extend it a bit wih
additional realloc() method.

IMO, it is another discussion.

Eugene

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com