From: Marcus Lindblom (macke_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-04 04:36:02
Michael Marcin wrote:
> Marcus Lindblom wrote:
>> Michael Marcin wrote:
>>> Marcus Lindblom wrote:
>>>> I looked at 284, but I couldn't decide which value to set next_size to
>>>> in purge_memory() (which, I believe, is the correct way to fix this).
>>>> I.e. whether to:
>>>> * Just use the default value (32).
>>>> * Add a new member variable to the class, initial_size, and use that.
>>>> I think I can present a patch for either, I'm just not sure what the
>>>> best approach is. (I was sort of hoping for the lib author to emerge
>>>> and provide guidance.)
>> #2 is probably the best way to solve it, since it won't require users to
>> specify the initial size in several places.
>> The argument against it is that it adds another variable to the class,
>> but that might not matter much as pool objects are rare and not copyable
>> (I think).
>> What do you think?
> Sorry didn't see this earlier.
> I don't know... there are lots of use cases for pool (like some of my
> work) that never call purge_memory. I'm not too keen on paying for
> features I don't use. Then again its just a size_t.
And that size_t is bound to be much less than what you actually allocate
with your pool. I.e, since you're allocating so much you need a pool,
its probably so much that the size_t doesn't matter.
I'll see what I can come up with.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk