Re: enbling STL containers in shared memory

["Bob Walters" <bob dot s dot walters at gmail dot com>]

John,

Thanks for the references.

I looked for the copyright assignment form (google), and found a
couple of copies, but the smail address to send the form to was
different.  I also tried contacting svc@gnu.org, but to no avail.

Thanks again,
- Bob

On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 6:46 PM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Bob,
>
>
>  >  I would like to know if I can make a contribution to the libstdc++ library.
>
>  Anyone can :-)
>  If it's a significant piece of work (and this would be)  you'll need
>  to fill out copyright assignment forms so that the FSF will accept
>  your contributions into the GCC codebase.
>
>
>  > Specifically, I would like to see the STL containers, including
>  > basic_string, adopt the convention of using the allocator::pointer typedef
>  > (via rebind, as needed) to determine the pointer type used internally.
>  >
>  >  I'm curious on whether that has ever been ruled out in the past.  I've seen
>  > threads that resisted the idea, but noting really specific.
>
>  see http://gcc.gnu.org/PR21771 and the thread it references, particularly
>  http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2005-05/msg00300.html and
>  http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2005-05/msg00372.html
>
>
>  >  I have "another one of those" projects that seeks to create STL containers
>  > in shared memory segments (stlshm.sourceforge.net) , requiring a 'relative
>  > pointer' approach for cases where programs can't all map the shared region
>  > in at the same virtual address.  I think that the libstdc++ library would
>  > work correctly if it could be made to honor the allocator::pointer typedef
>  > for those containers which take an allocator template parameter.
>
>  Yes, but unfortunately it's not as simple as just replacing all uses
>  of T* with allocator<T>::pointer
>
>
>  >  If I do the work of hunting down the native pointers that need to be
>  > changed, test the changes, and preset patches, would they be accepted?  Is
>  > there any other reason (e.g. compatibility with odd compilers) that this
>  > change can't be made?
>
>  I don't speak for the maintainers, but if you can make it work then I
>  think a lot of people would want to see it in libstdc++ :-)
>
>  Jon
>