From: Gregory Colvin (gregory.colvin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-09-02 13:47:29
On Tuesday, Sep 2, 2003, at 12:27 America/Denver, Peter Dimov wrote:
> Gregory Colvin wrote:
>> You are assuming that there was no good reason to allow an allocator
>> to hook construct and destroy, for instance to do some bookkeeping.
> I'm curious. Have you ever seen such an allocator? I've always assumed
> construct/destroy/pointer are a "but someone might need to do that"
> that nobody has ever used.
I've heard allocators described that probably used construct()
to navigate efficiently from a proxy pointer to the raw memory
in which to construct. But I never saw the code.
> Then again, the Dinkumware implementation
> dutifully calls construct and destroy, paying (and forcing me to pay)
> abstraction penalty price... so maybe I'm wrong, and construct/destroy
I don't see that there need be any performance price for what
Dinkumware does, or is that not what you mean by "abstraction
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk