Re: [boost] [string] proposal

Subject: Re: [boost] [string] proposal
From: Dean Michael Berris (mikhailberis_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-29 12:16:17

On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 1:00 AM, Ivan Le Lann <ivan.lelann_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> No matter the way you put it, you have one unnecessary allocation,
> because std::string has no move constructor from chain (yet).
> For people eventually throwing their boost::chain into std::string,
> we're basically killing all move/RVO optimizations.
>

That can be an issue that can also be mitigated by interning
linearized strings. But that only amortizes the cost of linearization
-- basically having a pointer to the linearized string part of the
root or metadata block for each immutable string.

I don't think though there's a way to get around the extra allocation
to convert to std::string unfortunately. But the linearization can
definitely be made amortized constant time.

However, consider that the cost of copying a string is typically the
same -- an extra allocation and an element-wise of memcpy.

> Am I missing something?

Nope, the extra allocation will happen regardless, you're right.

This is exacerbated when you have a huge chain that you want to
linearize to a string and is then copied. For short <1 page's worth of
strings, well I'm not too worried about the cost of an additional
allocation. But when you want a string instead of a chain, you pay the
price of conversion.

Maybe someone else has a good idea how to address this?

-- 
Dean Michael Berris
about.me/deanberris