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: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>
To: Peter Dimov <pdimov at mmltd dot net>, libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
Cc: jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 07:53:37 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: [RFC] A bit of rationale about C++0x shared_ptr vs allocators
Accept-language: en-US
References: <19382383.1217329121377.JavaMail.oracle@acsmt302.oracle.com> <13075715.1217331057814.JavaMail.oracle@acsmt302.oracle.com> <00cb01c8f173$d4585170$6607a80a@pdimov2>

... 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!?

Paolo.

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

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

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