[Patch] mt_allocator: spare mem & fix alignment problems

Dhruv Matani dhruvbird@gmx.net
Sun Mar 28 09:10:00 GMT 2004

On Sat, 2004-03-27 at 02:08, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
> >...rope certainly seems implicated. It is strange, however, that this
> >only fails with __mt_alloc and not with new_allocator or __pool_alloc.
> >  
> >
> Yes, puzzling. Something I still don't fully understand about 
> mt_allocator is
> the logic in deallocate: for instance, from the comments you would believe
> that remove is always > 0. Well, if one put there a stupid printf and run
> allocator/insert.cc learns that for B7-B17-B22 THREAD and for
> T7-T17-T22 THREAD it becomes as small as -127000 !?!?!

I think that this has got to do with the atomicity issue, but not 100%

> >We need to deprecate rope. We have no evidence that it's being used, and
> >it's the sole user of other crusty files. People who are curious about
> >it can just dig through the archives.
> >
> >I'll propose a patch to do so immediately after 3.4.0.
> >  
> >
> Too bad, I would say. Because after all I agree that algorithmically 
> there is
> something very interesting in it. I learned only a few days ago that 
> Hans Boehm,
> yes *that* Hans Boehm, created it around 10 years ago...

You mean Hans Bohem who has written the gc?

	-Dhruv Matani.

Proud to be a Vegetarian.

More information about the Libstdc++ mailing list