Subject: Re: [boost] Proposal: Monotonic Containers - Comparison with boost::pool, boost::fast_pool and TBB
From: David Bergman (David.Bergman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-06-22 18:47:30
On Jun 22, 2009, at 6:27 PM, Simonson, Lucanus J wrote:
> Perhaps I missed this part of the discussion, but why is it named
The "next allocated object" pointer is always increased,
monotonically? And, without measures such as the ones you suggested -
having an allocation counter etc. - it will monotonically lead to a
crashed system; just kidding, Christian! ;-)
> I would think something that describes its intended usage would be
> better. boost::scratch_memory,
I like the 'scratch' part.
> for example. Anyone who keeps objects allocated with an allocator
> called scratch_memory around for the lifetime of his program has
> some obvious explaining to do.
"But, it is part of Boost, so it must be safe, right?!" does not
> I also think that a more general interface would be to allow the
> user to supply and address and size of memory to use as the initial
> scratch memory with the automatic (on by default) ability to grow
> beyond that buffer if needed with system allocation on the heap
> using the chain. Thread safty should be controlled by a template
> parameter and enabled by default.
Great input, Luke. The wild ideas and over-simplified implementations
of Christian's might crystallize with the help of people like you. I
think I would prefer a solid non-chained realization first, though. If
that proves stable and intriguing enough, we can consider "chains"?
Or, is it totally meaningless without chained blocks?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk