Re: [boost] Does Boost.Pool have a maintainer ?

Subject: Re: [boost] Does Boost.Pool have a maintainer ?
From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-06-29 17:06:53

AMDG

On 06/27/2012 06:15 AM, DUPUIS Etienne wrote:
> Greetings,
> 
> Does Boost.Pool have a maintainer ? If no, what happens in that case, who decides to include bug fixes for open bugs ?
> 
> If there is no maintainer, can I become the maintainer ?
> 
> If the answer to the latter question is yes, can someone volunteer to be my "mentor"  to help me with issues related to the way boost development work ? I have already fixed pool bugs in the sandbox and added related test programs.
> 

I have a few comments on your changes:

- Why did you remove the valgrind sections?

- You used the textbook implementation of merge
  sort.  Mergesort for lists generally looks
  more like this (untested):

void * sort(void * arg) {
  void * stack[64];
  void * limit = stack;
  while (arg) {
    void * carry = arg;
    void * * iter = stack;
    while (true) {
      if (iter == limit) {
        ++limit;
        break;
      } else if (*iter) {
        carry = merge(*iter, carry);
        *iter = 0;
      } else {
        break;
      }
      ++iter;
    }
    *iter = carry;
    arg = next(arg);
  }
  void * result = 0;
  for (void * * iter = stack; stack < limit; ++stack) {
    result = merge(result, *iter);
  }
  return result;
}

- You've duplicated sort in simple_segregated_storage
  and PODPtr.

- You should use std::less<void*> in sort to match the
  sorting done by ordered_free.

- pool::ordered should be set in the constructor
  initializer list.

- I don't think that boost::pool should track whether
  it is ordered.  This tracking is only needed by
  object_pool, so object_pool should maintain it.
  Also, I don't think that this flag affects the
  behavior of object_pool at all, since object_pool
  will always call pool::malloc, thus setting ordered
  to false.

- I don't think that a user specified value of
  next_size or max_size which is too large should
  be silently truncated.  It should be an error.

- I have no idea what static_pool is supposed to do.

- array_pool::memory has to be aligned.

In Christ,
Steven Watanabe