Re: [boost] Re: Boost memory management guidelines

From: Gregory Colvin (gregory.colvin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-09-02 14:26:10

On Tuesday, Sep 2, 2003, at 13:00 America/Denver, Peter Dimov wrote:

> Gregory Colvin wrote:
>> On Tuesday, Sep 2, 2003, at 12:27 America/Denver, Peter Dimov wrote:
>>
>>>  Then again, the Dinkumware implementation
>>> dutifully calls construct and destroy, paying (and forcing me to pay)
>>> the abstraction penalty price... so maybe I'm wrong, and
>>> construct/destroy are useful?
>>
>> I don't see that there need be any performance price for what
>> Dinkumware does, or is that not what you mean by "abstraction
>> penalty"?
>
> I'm not saying that there need be any price in a perfect world. I am 
> saying
> that in practice, on the compiler I use, there is a price, like 
> calling a
> non-inline destroy() O(N) times for a value_type that has an inline, 
> empty,
> nonvirtual destructor. Or even for a built-in value_type.

That is most unfortunate.