Re: [boost] [utility] new auto_buffer class --- RFC

Subject: Re: [boost] [utility] new auto_buffer class --- RFC
From: Thorsten Ottosen (thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-02 14:31:56

Felipe Magno de Almeida skrev:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Thorsten Ottosen
> <thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Felipe Magno de Almeida skrev:
> 
> [snip]
> 
>>> Can't push_back call reserve if it doesn't fit? That way push_back could
>>> still be inlineable. Or am I missing something?
>> Last I checked, vector<T>::push_back() was not inlined, no matter the
>> optimization level. The whole involvement of the allocator, and copying
>> of elements on expansion seems to tell the compile it is inadvisable.
> 
> I see, And auto_buffer::push_back is inlined?

At least it is much more likely to be. Again, the standard doesn't 
guarantee it.

> Have you tried with the buffer expansion check?
> I still advocate for a growing push_back even if it is not inlined, and
> adding a unchecked_push_back if somebody needs more performance.

Yes, but are needed.

>> And then there is the additional check for buffer expansion.
> 
> I would think this check would be quite unexpensive.

Yeah, probably small compared to the function not being inlined.
But still an overhead we would like to avoid if possible.

-Thorsten