Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost.Pool] TR1?
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-04-12 11:04:13
On Apr 12, 2011, at 3:54 AM, Phil Bouchard <philippe_at_[hidden]> wrote:
On 4/11/2011 11:19 PM, Nevin Liber wrote:
On 11 April 2011 22:40, Phil Bouchard< <philippe_at_[hidden]>
On 4/11/2011 6:02 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
Whatever the costs, you have a point because this is something that
can only be implemented portably by the standard. I'm certain that
Boost.Pool invokes undefined behavior whenever it returns false from
Indeed 'false' basically means your not sure if the pointer will eventually
be part of the pool
But it may be undefined behavior to pass that pointer to is_from.
That's right but I am not sure about the complexity in making its behavior
non-undefined even if the complexity is not constant. Because otherwise
is_from() would be quite useless
I think you are severely missing the point: it is not implementable, no
matter the cost in complexity, without causing undefined behavior. You're
just not allowed to compare arbitrary pointers with <, and the total
ordering produce by std::less isn't guaranteed to be meaningful.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk