Re: [Boost-users] boost::pool

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] boost::pool
From: Stefan Strasser (strasser_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-04 10:10:19

Am Wednesday 04 November 2009 04:31:25 schrieb Nigel Rantor:
>
> Reading the above interprocess docs was another reason why I assume
> you're really talking about augmenting Pool. Those allocators appear
> like they'd have significant overhead for small objects, which Pool
> doesn't currently (With the same caveats about me reading the Pool docs
> correctly).
>
> So, if I understand correctly the wishlist is:
>
> - O(1) de-allocation.
>
> - Arbitrary sized allocations from a single pool.
>
> - Better performance for MT.

well, these are the points that _I_ am missing. I did not research this topic, 
so there might be many other algorithms with different memory and time 
complexity characteristics.
from what I understand there are also other libraries for that task, at least 
I was recommended a google library when I brought up this topic earlier. I 
didn't look at it though.

after researching what is out there and more "wishlists" other that mine, one 
could decide if the current boost.pool interface/concepts is sufficient and 
could be kept. I had a short look at the implementation of boost.pool and I 
would not try to ammend the implementation. there are easier ways to 
implement that sort of thing, particularily using Boost.Intrusive.

>
> I am tired so I'm going to be lazy and say that I can see how you could
> have multiple strategies in one library that allow people to pick their
> preference of time vs. space

exactly.

> but I'm not immediately sure if you can 
> make an allocation scheme that gives constant-time and space for all
> operations.

no you can't. (if you meant 0 memory overhead)