Re: [boost] Interest in StaticVector - fixed capacity vector

Subject: Re: [boost] Interest in StaticVector - fixed capacity vector
From: Andrew Hundt (athundt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-10-12 05:43:27

> And sometimes is less efficient.  For instance, if you are populating
> from StaticVector from list iterators (or any non-random access
> iterators), it's an O(n) check ahead of time or a complicated wrapper
> around a one-at-a-time insert.  (Note:  this is a bug in the current
> implementation of StaticVector, as its iterator constructor currently
> requires random access iterators).
>
>
Thanks for finding the bug! I added it to my list.

>
> I'd really like to see the interface be as close to C++11 std::vector
> as possible (other than vector<bool>).

This is definitely one of my goals.

Perhaps it would be reasonable to add an unchecked_push_back like the one in
AutoBuffer. That way, both those that want and do not want extra checks can
be happy.

I am trying to tackle one bug that I simply haven't been able to understand.
My test program benchStaticVector calls a function that adds some random
std::set<std::size_t> to a StaticVector, then returns it to a local variable
and lets it go out of scope. It seems the destructor is being called on the
return, but for some reason the copy isn't happening correctly. Then, when
the local variable goes out of scope free gets called on uninitialized
memory. Does anyone know what type of problem might be the cause of this?
Perhaps I am missing some should-be-obvious function from my implementation?

Thanks for all the great comments!

Cheers!
Andrew Hundt