[PATCH] irange_pool class

[Andrew MacLeod]

On 9/18/20 8:28 AM, David Malcolm wrote:I think of a "pool allocator" as 
something that makes a small
>>> number of
>>> large allocation under the covers, and then uses that to serve
>>> large
>>> numbers of fixed sized small allocations and deallocations with
>>> O(1)
>>> using a free list.
>> Ah, I didn't know pool had a different meaning.
> See e.g. gcc/alloc-pool.h

The name originated when the original v1 version was based on using 
alloc-pool.h.  when we went to varying sizes, we switched to and obstack 
implementation  and never changed the name.
  <...>

>>> I think it would be clearer to name this "irange_obstack", or
>>> somesuch.
>> I'd prefer something more generic.  We don't want to tie the name of
>> the
>> allocator to the underlying implementation.  What if we later change
>> to
>> malloc?  We'd have to change the name to irange_malloc.
>> irange_allocator?  Or is there something more generically appropriate
>> here?
> How about "irange_bump_allocator?"   Rather long, but it expresses the



"irange_allocator" is sufficient .      The consumer should not care 
what the implementation is, and we may decide to implement it 
differently down the road. So I don't want to imply something specific 
in the name or we'd have to change it again.

Andrew