Subject: Re: [boost] [smart ptr] Any interest in copy-on-write pointer for C++11?
From: Mathias Gaunard (mathias.gaunard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-02-09 01:13:49
On 08/02/13 22:44, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
> I'm sure the WebKit project would welcome a patch demonstrating that
> flyweights are a more efficient technique for CSS matching. I don't expect
> they are because these values are built up through several mutations, and a
> hash table lookup plus a copy on each mutation sounds more expensive than
> the current copy-on-write system.
I don't pretend to know anything about what WebKit is actually doing.
I interpreted what you said to mean that they want all values that are
equal to use the same object. In that case the logical approach is
indeed to use a flyweight factory.
I think I just misunderstood what this was about; maybe they want to do
partial COW on subtrees to minimize memory usage for redundant
information, which is a whole different beast. COW on whole data
structures is useless, but it is very useful when partial sharing is
involved. That is not, however, the case that was presented here.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk