patch: mt_allocator.h

[Paolo Carlini]

Dhruv Matani wrote:

>Think about it this way. Suppose it wasn't, and I used:
>list<int>;
>list<string>;
>list<float>;
>
>Then, under the current design, all would have their separate free-lists
>per thread! Which is obviously insane!
>  
>
Ok, ok, let's work on this assumption ;)

>>In any case, what about not splitting mt_allocator in a __gnu_internal::
>>part and a std:: part? 
>>    
>>
>You mean a __gnu_internal and a __gnu_cxx part right?
>  
>
Indeed.

>>Can't we put *all* the implementation details
>>inside _Mt_alloc_base?
>>    
>>
>Probably? Would you want me to try and do that?
>
Yes, please. Always both 'make check' and 'make check-performance', thanks.

Paolo.