Re: [boost] [pool] future directions

From: Michael Gopshtein (mgopshtein_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-09 16:13:18

"David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:87lkfyklpu.fsf_at_grogan.peloton...
>
> on Tue May 08 2007, "Michael Gopshtein" <mgopshtein-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Atry" <pop.atry_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>> news:fd8b80680705080147t5c561dd8l9fc0ee8ede2120c7_at_mail.gmail.com...
>>> Yes, "defragment" or other automation memory management is useful, but 
>>> the
>>> existing code depends on native pointer would be very hard to work
>>> together,
>>> almost all C++ code need to recode if they want to use these futures.
>>>
>>
>> I do "feel" that just moving object's memory is not safe, but can't find
>> explanation why it will cause problems. Can you give an example of a 
>> class
>> for which this will not work?
>
>  struct B;
>
>  struct A {
>    A(B*p) : p(p) {}
>    B* p;
>  };
>
>  struct B : noncopyable {
>    B() : px(new A(this)) {}
>    auto_ptr<A> px; // invariant: px->p == this
>  };

So, basically, it's any case where the object has pointers to it's internal 
members, right?

Are there other cases that the object can't be "moved" (it's more of a 
theoretical interest)?

> -- 
> Dave Abrahams
> Boost Consulting
> http://www.boost-consulting.com
>
> Don't Miss BoostCon 2007! ==> http://www.boostcon.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: 
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>