From: Iain Hanson (Iain.Hanson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-22 09:06:17
On Fri, 2005-04-22 at 13:07 +0200, Peter Simons wrote:
> Iain Hanson writes:
> >> async_read should not take a buffer; instead, the
> >> callback should receive a pointer to a buffer managed by
> >> the library that is guaranteed to be valid for the
> >> duration of the callback. (Not by default, at least.)
> >> async_write (by default) should not assume that the
> >> passed buffer stays valid after async_write returns.
> > This would give a significant performance hit as there
> > will now be two copies of the data.
> Not if the callback doesn't make any copies.
That is a long way from being the common case.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk