Re: [Boost-Users] object_pool, O(N) destroy?

From: hicks (hicks_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-28 19:30:03

It sounds like a case where a type trait, identifying the need for the 
pool to responsible for deletion,
would be appropriate.  Then objects which did not need to be destroyed 
(e.g. ptrs, "plain" structs)
could be handled by optimized code.  But that's more work than cut and 
paste.

Craig Hicks

kevin_godden_at_[hidden] wrote:

>Thanks for the Info Steve,
>
>In this case, I am less interested in the pool's destructor as I _should_
>have a 1 to 1 on malloc()ing and destroying the individual objects (if all
>goes well...).  The pool will only be destroyed once during the lifetime of
>the application so I could probably suffer a O(N^2) pool destructor.  I will
>try what you recommend in your postscript.
>
>Thanks again..
>
>Kevin\
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: scleary_at_[hidden] [mailto:scleary_at_[hidden]]
>Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 2:10 PM
>To: Boost-Users_at_[hidden]
>Cc: shammah_at_[hidden]
>Subject: RE: [Boost-Users] object_pool, O(N) destroy?
>
>
>>From: kevin_godden_at_[hidden] [mailto:kevin_godden_at_[hidden]]
>>
>>I am considering using boost::object_pool for fast allocation and
>>deallocation of likkle container/token objects. I need to make this as
>>
>fast
>
>>as possible, to this end I wonder why object_pool seems to use
>>boost::pool::ordered_free() (O(N)) rather than the faster 
>>free() (O(1))?
>>
>>There must be a reason, but I can't seem to find it in the Lib's
>>documentation.
>>
>
>The object_pool keeps its free list ordered because of the requirements of
>its destructor.  Its destructor steps through the free list, calling the
>destructor for any objects that weren't freed.  The current algorithm is
>O(N) because the free list is ordered; if it wasn't ordered, it would be
>O(N^2).
>
>I'll document this in the code.
>
>	-Steve
>
>P.S. An object_pool without the destructor behaviour may be what you want.
>Boost.Pool doesn't provide one, but you could just cut & paste the
>object_pool, remove the destructor, and change ordered_malloc/ordered_free
>to the regular malloc/free (you also won't need nextof).  Just note that if
>you ever construct something from that pool and don't destruct it, you enter
>the fun realm of undefined behaviour... :)
>
>
>Info: <http://www.boost.org>
>Wiki: <http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl>
>Unsubscribe: <mailto:boost-users-unsubscribe_at_[hidden]>
> 
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
>
>
>
>Info: <http://www.boost.org>
>Wiki: <http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl>
>Unsubscribe: <mailto:boost-users-unsubscribe_at_[hidden]>
> 
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
>
>
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]