Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [fiber] ready for next review
From: Oliver Kowalke (oliver.kowalke_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-12-05 09:18:08

2015-12-05 15:03 GMT+01:00 Agustín K-ballo Bergé <kaballo86_at_[hidden]>:

> On 12/4/2015 11:48 AM, Agustín K-ballo Bergé wrote:
>> On 12/4/2015 4:47 AM, Oliver Kowalke wrote:
>>> 2015-12-03 22:21 GMT+01:00 Agustín K-ballo Bergé <kaballo86_at_[hidden]
>>> >:
>>> Yes, in the documentation.
>>> documentation might need some updates - my announcement was primarly
>>> focused to the source code
>> Fair enough, I was misguided by the "ready for next review" subject as
>> well as the announcement that requests from the review have been
>> addressed. This is obviously not the case, but we can still make a lot
>> of progress based on source code adjustments only.
> I found an unusual pattern in the code, where memory is allocated via an
> allocator's `allocate` but afterwards `construct` is side-stepped and
> placement new is used instead. This breaks proper allocator support.
> Curiously `destroy` is correctly used down the line.
> Furthermore, from a cursory look it seems C++11 allocators are not
> supported. The code assumes a C++03 allocator interface. If it is
> intentional then this requirement should be documented.

it is not an ordinary allocator - it's a 'stack allocator'
placement new is used to allocate the control-structure on the fiber-stack
(instead on using new -> heap)

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at