Re: [boost] Stack-based vector container

Subject: Re: [boost] Stack-based vector container
From: Domagoj Saric (dsaritz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-16 09:53:29

"David Bergman" <David.Bergman_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:FF46F967-E45E-4188-9976-6090F2054A51_at_bergmangupta.com...
> What you are doing here is to mix two (presumably...) orthogonal aspects,
> in that you bake in the allocation policy in the vector interface.
>
> In fact, a "static allocator" to be used in cases like std::vector was 
> discussed
> at length on this list a year ago (or was it two years?)

This is not quite the same, i.e. std::vector is 'too' generic so it would 
still incur overhead compared to a simple 
"stack-buffer-with-an-end-pointer": it contains (and maintains) three 
pointers (or std::size_ts) begin, end and "reserved end" as opposed to only 
an end pointer/std::size_t + it is designed around the 'idea' of "fallible 
allocation", that is it expects allocation requests to possibly throw so in 
some cases/member functions implementations have to use guard objects and/or 
explicit exception handling (which the optimizer may or may not be able to 
remove) ... and this same problem might obfuscate the code (for the 
compiler) enough so that the optimizer might not be able to detect that a 
'std::vector with a static allocator' does not throw and cause it to still 
emit EH code/unwind funclets (for surrounding/calling code)...

-- 
"What Huxley teaches is that in the age of advanced technology, spiritual
devastation is more likely to come from an enemy with a smiling face than
from one whose countenance exudes suspicion and hate."
Neil Postman