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: Optimize hashtable allocator

From: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>
To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
Cc: François Dumont <frs dot dumont at gmail dot com>, "libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org" <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 11:10:48 +0100
Subject: Re: Optimize hashtable allocator
References: <50904047.1060702@gmail.com> <CAH6eHdRkJg7hhN=z4aKzFabvyshrxU48joxsVCsGCUMuN6xbCA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

On 10/30/2012 10:26 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:

According latest
messages I understood it was still time to break ABI for unordered
containers, at least I hope so.

Paolo?

Yes, as you remarked, lately we fiddled quite a bit with these containers. We had too. Luckily, since they don't exist in C++98 mode, we don't the kind of annoying issue we have with std::list vs size and I don't think a quality implementation can renounce to the EBO for the allocator, since it benefits the vast majority of users most of the times. When we globally break the ABI we have to do the same for the associative containers too.

Thanks!
Paolo.

References:
- Optimize hashtable allocator
  - From: François Dumont
- Re: Optimize hashtable allocator
  - From: Jonathan Wakely

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