This is the mail archive of the libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the libstdc++ project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [RFC] A bit of rationale about C++0x shared_ptr vs allocators

From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov at mmltd dot net>
To: "Paolo Carlini" <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>, <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Cc: <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:48:55 +0300
Subject: Re: [RFC] A bit of rationale about C++0x shared_ptr vs allocators
References: <19382383.1217329121377.JavaMail.oracle@acsmt302.oracle.com> <13075715.1217331057814.JavaMail.oracle@acsmt302.oracle.com> <00cb01c8f173$d4585170$6607a80a@pdimov2> <26838587.1217336017920.JavaMail.oracle@acsmt302.oracle.com>

Paolo Carlini wrote:

... now, however, I'm not sure to understand why allocate_shared
takes a const ref. The wording about a copy of the allocator used to
allocate memory is also similar!?

My mistake. :-)

References:
- [RFC] A bit of rationale about C++0x shared_ptr vs allocators
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: [RFC] A bit of rationale about C++0x shared_ptr vs allocators
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: [RFC] A bit of rationale about C++0x shared_ptr vs allocators
  - From: Peter Dimov
- Re: [RFC] A bit of rationale about C++0x shared_ptr vs allocators
  - From: Paolo Carlini

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]