Subject: Re: [boost] root_ptr only on stack? (was Re: [Root Pointer] Seeking a Review Manager
From: Phil Bouchard (philippeb8_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-04-03 13:59:04
On 04/03/2016 12:31 PM, Larry Evans wrote:
> On 04/01/2016 12:25 AM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
>> - "Root Pointer" is an alternative to the long unsolved problem of
>> garbage collectors which lasted for more than 70 years!
>> - Thanks to Paul A. Bristow for his help on the generation of the
>> documentation which is now available at the following link:
> Judging just from:
> I would guess a root_ptr *must* be on the stack.
> However, I didn't find anything in the following:
> to support this.
> Could you please clarify?
No root_ptr doesn't necessarily need to be on the stack; it can be a
member of a container class allocated on the heap for example.
So a root_ptr will most likely be either allocated on the stack, the
data segment or a class member allocated on the heap. It is a "root"
and once destroyed all associated node_ptr are guaranteed to be wiped
out as well.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk