Boost logo

Boost :

From: Steven Ross (spreadsort_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-07-08 17:01:59

On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 9:25 AM, Phil Endecott <
spam_from_boost_dev_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Steven Ross wrote:
>> - Use new and delete rather than *alloc and free.
>>> - Can any exceptions occur? If so, is the dynamically allocated memory
>>> leaked? Could you use a smart pointer to avoid this?
> I was referring to exceptions in general between allocation and
> de-allocation, not just during allocation itself.

I guess the user-defined types could have exceptions in their >> and <
methods, so I'll have to make it exception-safe. Good point.

> Using *alloc, they should return NULL if allocation failed, and that
>> situation is handled. With new and delete I'll have to catch memory
>> exceptions
> See new(nothrow).

Right, thanks for the reminder. That + smart pointers should make sure
there are no memory leaks with an exception. I could use a try-catch, but
std::sort doesn't, so I'll just let the user catch exceptions from their own
operator overloads.

> - Does it work with uint64_t? I see some variables declared as 'long',
>>> which often can't store a uint64_t.
>> There exists the problem of how to identify and deal with negatives. I
>> try
>> to avoid forcing any particular return data type
> Why not just use Iterator::value_type (or whatever it's called; or some
> iterator_traits thing) everywhere?
> They are already divided
>> by 512, so an unsigned should fit inside a signed data type without
>> trouble.
> Dividing a 64-bit value by 512 does not make it small enough to fit in a
> 32-bit long. (Have I misunderstood you?)

I was suggesting using an int64_t, which will hold a 64-bit value, so yes,
there was a misunderstanding.
The problem is that I need to use the return type of the user's >> method,
and with the same code supporting any-size data and both signed and unsigned
integers, I need a data type that can support all the different
Is there some way I can grab the return type of the user's >> method and use
it directly?
Otherwise, I think int64_t should work as long as it's fast until people
start using 128-bit values.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at