Hi Luke, Please compare performance of your container to std containers with a good
memory pooling allocator and include system settings with your benchmarks so that we know what you are measuring. Your benchmarks mean nothing to me because I don't know what allocator you are comparing to, but suspect you are comparing to the system allocator, which is clearly a straw man argument.
I am directly comparing monotonic::allocator to std::allocator, so there is no straw-man. I agree that eventually I'll have to compare against as many other possible arrangements as possible, stopping when any of them fails to provide a performance benefit for the proposed system. The benchmarks I posted, while hardly exhaustive, do indeed show a performance increase of 10-100x over the standard schemes. At least this was a proof-of-concept over and above my hand-waving. I showed this for both stack- and heap-based storage, for the same algorithm implemented using the same containers, which no other changes or custom data-structures. I agree that more testing should be done, and I'll do so with a better system analysis. I'll post more results and an updated library with full constructor forwarding and alignment. It may well be that a more extensive performance analysis shows that my proposed allocator is a wash. Regards,
Luke
Cheers, Christian.