This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: [PATCH] Slightly better way to __USE_MALLOC
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 07:22:36PM -0300, Brad Spencer wrote:
>
> The symbols I'm talking about aren't new. __default_alloc_template
> and __malloc_alloc_template already exist and are already both in the
> GLIBCPP_3.2 version. I think it would make sense to rename __default
> to __pool, but it's probably too late for that now.
Too late for the 3.2 series, but nobody's expecting the library to have
the same ABI for 3.[34]. There're still too many useful changes to make.
Like this one. :-)
On my whiteboard I have a Grand Master Plan to reorganize the stl_alloc.h
header, making things more generic, and allowing multiple allocation
schemes to be instantiated in the library. For it, I was freely changing
the names of the internal classes.
(Coding it keeps getting pushed back...)
> I see now why a "patch would be appreciated". :) I'm starting to
> question the value of having both __malloc and __default templates
> instantiated in the library, too.
Then you can in theory write
std::vector<foo,the_malloc_allocator> x;
std::vector<foo,the_default_allocator> y;
without needing to carry around instantiations of one of those allocators
in your code, which is wasteful at best and could lead to multiple symbol
definitions at worst.
Phil
--
I would therefore like to posit that computing's central challenge, viz. "How
not to make a mess of it," has /not/ been met.
- Edsger Dijkstra, 1930-2002