Feedback on __mt_alloc?

[Stefan Olsson]

Phil Edwards wrote:

>On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 08:19:42PM +0200, Stefan Olsson wrote:
>  
>
>>Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>>Looking at the current stl_alloc.h that would only be __malloc_alloc and 
>>>>__debug_alloc right?
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>I was thinking of moving them all over, so __pool_alloc would also be fair 
>>>game.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Hmmm...
>>...so stl_alloc.h would only contain __new_alloc as required by the 
>>standard? That would be really nice and clean!
>>    
>>
>
>Let's be more clear about this:  the standard doesn't require "stl_alloc.h"
>nor "__new_alloc".  It just requires that the default container allocator
>use new/delete.
>
Sorry about the confusion...

>
>
>  
>
>>Where would the pool_alloc.h file (along with the other SGI specific 
>>code such as __simple_alloc for _Alloc_traits etc) be included then for 
>>"compability"? In stl_alloc.h?
>>    
>>
>
>I don't think we really gain anything by splitting them up, if we have
>to go to each bits/* header and re-include them.  Or by including all the
>new ones back into stl_alloc.h.
>
>I think... hm.  I think I need to put the __N markup on hold, finish my
>current documentaion updates, and then get back to work on redoing the
>allocators.
>
Ok. Just let me know if I can help in any way, but the way I interpret 
this is that we should "lay low" until you've done your thing with the 
allocators?

Brgds

/Stefan

-- 
Experience is what you get when you were expecting something else.