From: Gregory Colvin (gregory.colvin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-06 16:30:18
On Monday, Oct 6, 2003, at 15:15 America/Denver, Philippe A. Bouchard
> Gregory Colvin wrote:
>>> There is no graph scanning, everything works instantaneously,
>>> reasonnably fast and:
>>> - sizeof("indicator") == sizeof(long)
>>> - sizeof(shifted_ptr<T, root_collector>) == sizeof(void *) * 2
>> That is the same size as shared_ptr. So why not put the effort into
>> a garbage collecting allocator for shared_ptr?
> It is the same size but it is still twice faster,
> the memory map is not fragmented,
> destructors will be called on time (not obvious)
What does "on time" mean? The best time and order for object
is an open and contentious issue among memory management experts.
> & it is not requiring too much extra memory. It is a better overall,
Better than what?
> I would like it to be benchmarked
My suspicion is that your implementation of garbage collection can be
given a shared_ptr interface with no loss of performance, which I would
prefer over introducing a new type.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk