From: Phil Bouchard (philippe_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-06-24 03:12:44
"Larry Evans" <cppljevans_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> Ah! Looking at the api doc:
> I'd guess that the ref_count is in boost::sh::detail::owned_base
> along with some other data having something to do with the
> 'Memory segment' mentioned in section 3.3 of:
Precisely, owned_base derives from sp_counted_base which contains the
> Why not use the forwarding library that was recently approved?
> A relevant post is:
Thanks I will; I am aware of the moving semantics on their way up the
standards I just need to have all the code exposed while working on the
allocator before using anything else.
> namespace container_intern
> actually rewrite std::vector to use a new defintion of std::allocator
> template which provided different pointer types. One type was for
> the root pointer of the container, the other was for all other
> pointers used in the container. The default value of std::allocator
> simply made root_pointer the same as pointer. The specialized
> version of std::allocator made the root_pointer a smart_pointer.
> Obviously the 2nd one would be very hard (or at least take very
> long) to get into the standard.
How fortunate! I could get use of that code... On the other hand
shifted_ptr is done and STL containers support is extracurricular so I would
vote for the latter. It can take all the time at that level, but we are
simply requiring lessening the standards...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk