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: [v3] __pool_alloc rework

From: Loren James Rittle <rittle at latour dot rsch dot comm dot mot dot com>
To: libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
Cc: carlo at alinoe dot com
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 13:45:03 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: [v3] __pool_alloc rework
Organization: Applications, Content and Services CoE (IL02/2240), Motorola Labs
References: <20040617200542.3adc41be.bkoz@redhat.com><40D2B19E.5050702@suse.de> <20040618121635.GA9927@alinoe.com><40D2E45D.3070406@suse.de> <20040618144052.GA31506@alinoe.com><40D3040D.1000600@suse.de> <20040619001804.GA16942@alinoe.com><1087636047.1433.7.camel@localhost.localdomain><20040622235945.0194e27e.bkoz@nabi.net>

> I hope you will use mt_alloc instead.  If pool_alloc is "fixed" in this
> way then I will have to hack access to 128 different locks - and even

I'm afraid to ask but...  Why is one writing any code, anywhere that
knows the number of library internal locks?

Regards,
Loren

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [v3] __pool_alloc rework
  - From: Carlo Wood

References:
- [v3] __pool_alloc rework
  - From: Benjamin Kosnik
- Re: [v3] __pool_alloc rework
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: [v3] __pool_alloc rework
  - From: Carlo Wood
- Re: [v3] __pool_alloc rework
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: [v3] __pool_alloc rework
  - From: Carlo Wood
- Re: [v3] __pool_alloc rework
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: [v3] __pool_alloc rework
  - From: Carlo Wood
- Re: [v3] __pool_alloc rework
  - From: Dhruv Matani
- Re: [v3] __pool_alloc rework
  - From: B. Kosnik

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