From: Thore Karlsen (sid_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-19 10:02:32
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:47:11 -0400, Rob Stewart <stewart_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> >> - For vector<char>, there is the initialisation of the chars to 0 on
>> >> construction or when you do a resize. Note that this is proportional to
>> >> the size of the vector, not necessarily to the amount of data
>> >> transferred. I have seen this have a noticable cost in a CPU-bound
>> >> server handling thousands of connections.
>> >Don't construct a vector of a given size or use resize(), then.
>> >Rely on reserve() instead.
>> Then size() will return the wrong value, and relying on capacity() is
>No, size() will correctly indicate that there are no objects in
>> not a good idea. If you're thinking about pushing data onto the vector
>Why is relying on capacity() a bad idea?
I thought you might have meant that you reserve() the space you need,
and write into the allocated space, thus bypassing the default element
initialization you get with resize(). I'm glad you're not suggesting
>> as it's read, that's also bad, because then you'd have to read into a
>> temporary buffer first and copy it to the vector after. (Or do multiple
>At some point, the vector has to have sufficient elements in it
>so that you can copy new values onto them. Otherwise, the vector
>won't know it has real elements. Yes, that means you do pay for
>the initialization at some point and, yes, that isn't desirable.
OK, then we understand each other.
>> >> - Requiring a copy from a native data structure into vector<char> or
>> >> char[N]. If I have an array of a doubles say, I should be able to send
>> >> it as-is to a peer that has identical architecture and compiler.
>> >> Avoiding unnecessary data copying is a vital part of implementing high
>> >> performance protocols.
>> >Agreed. OTOH, using swap(), *if* a user used a vector<double>
>> >instead of the array you mention, then vector won't add overhead.
>> Why would a swap be necessary?
>If asio used a vector, the user could swap it's contents into his
>own vector. (That's not the current interface, but then neither
>is vector in the current interface. It was just informational
>for the discussion.)
Yes, true, but what Christopher was talking about was the need to copy
from a native data structure into the vector. In the case where the user
does use vectors, I would assume that the asio call would just read the
elements directly into the vector the user supplies to the read call.
(Thus no need for swapping.)
>> >Instead, how about a std::vector-like class that takes a
>> >user-defined, fixed-size block of memory?
>> No, that would still require a copy if the data isn't already in such a
>> buffer. void * (or unsigned char *, or char *, or whatever) HAS to be
>> there, otherwise the library is useless. Such a class could be an option
>> (and I would like to see it as an option), but not a requirement.
>I don't think you understand what I'm suggesting. Notice that I
>used the word "takes." Furthermore, I think you snipped the
>details about how that class would use the buffer handed to it.
>The data has to be in some memory somewhere. The class I'm
>suggesting can be told to use that memory and can be told how
>much memory is available. Then, whenever asio needs to read data
>into the caller's buffer, or write data from the caller's buffer,
>it is taken from that preexisting buffer.
Ah, yes, I did misunderstand you. That would be perfect, if you could
have the option of either wrapping already allocated memory or having
the class manage the memory directly. That's how I do it in my
higher-level network classes.
I still think a raw void * read/write should be there, but I also think
this wrapper class should be an option.
>> In my applications I can't afford to copy data from my internal buffers
>> to whatever the networking library requires. I also can't put the data
>> in such buffers to begin with.
>So wrap your internal buffers with the class I'm suggesting. No
>copy is needed. The class simply provides a standard interface,
>complete with push_back(), iterators, random access, etc., and
>prevents buffer overruns.
Yes, I agree. This is the approach I've taken, and it works very well.
-- Be seeing you.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk