Subject: Re: [boost] [object_pool] too slow?
From: Ben Muzal (bmuzal_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-16 15:46:54
Like I said, if you want the destructors called when the pool is
destroyed, you should be using a container not a pool. (allocators are
not containers. containers delete the objects they hold because they
own them. Allocators however do not own the objects that they
But that is not really the point of my post. That 'feature' of the
destructor will have to stay so that it does not break any existing
code. My real problem is the O(n^2) nature of allocating then
dealocating N objects.
Am I wrong that the O(n^2) behavior should be considered a BUG?
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Steven Watanabe <watanabesj_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Ben Muzal wrote:
>> However, my personal feelings about a pool is that the pool should not
>> be calling the destructors on any objects that are still allocated
>> when the pool is destroyed.
> If that's what you want, then use boost::pool instead of boost::object_pool.
> In Christ,
> Steven Watanabe
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk