Re: [boost] Proposal: Monotonic Containers

Subject: Re: [boost] Proposal: Monotonic Containers
From: Christopher Jefferson (chris_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-06-10 03:07:53

On 9 Jun 2009, at 23:05, Ion Gaztañaga wrote:

> Christian Schladetsch wrote:
>> Hi Andrew:
>> Maybe yes, maybe no. My understanding of the allocators was that  
>> they were
>>> originally used to abstract differences in pointer types like  
>>> __far and
>>> __huge pointers. Their usage has become substantially more complex  
>>> and
>>> varied since then.
>> If STL containers cannot be made by any means to use the stack for  
>> storage
>> then we need a new set of containers.
>
> <advertisement>
>
> Just a note. The proposed move-aware containers in Boost.Sandbox  
> move library are standard-compatible containers that support both  
> stateful allocators and (a modified version of) N1850. They have  
> been also used to implement a modified malloc that takes advantage  
> of these new functions:
>
> http://www.drivehq.com/web/igaztanaga/allocplus/

Oh, cool!

It's my intention to try to push these "realloc without moving"  
functions into some standard libraries if I can manage it, then  
hopefully they'll be around for use in C++ later (I suspect  
boost::malloc might well be out of our reach ;) ) My hope is that some  
of the current interest in mallocs will mean they'll be enthusiastic  
about the idea of adding functionality that allows better performance  
in C++.

Out of interest, which set of extensions did you add to DLmalloc?  
Would be nice to try to come up with a small, consistant working set,  
to then try to sell to some mallocs.

Chris