Have you considered/evaluated dlmalloc? Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 6:55 PM, Stefan Strasser <strasser@uni-bremen.de> wrote:
I took a closer look at Boost.Pool today to replace some default allocation of small objects.
what I found there was a little disappointing, at least for my use case.
the object_pool has 2 major downsides: - no dynamic block allocation - destroying one(!) object is O(N), with N being the number of unused objects in the pool
so I wrote some code for my own use. I'm not suggesting this code should be added to boost, but something like it.
struct A{ ... };
{ pool<A,100> pool; A *a; for(int c=0;c<250;++c){ a=pool.new_(); // O(1) } pool.delete_(a); //O(1), destructs } //destruction of 249 objects, O(N)
this allocates 3 memory blocks. but it also has one pointer memory overhead per object, to achieve constant time deletion. but you can use that pointer while the object is in use, which was what lead to this code: I needed to store unused boost.intrusive nodes:
struct A : intrusive::[s]list_base_hook<>{ ... };
{ [s]list_pool<A,[s]list_base_hook<>,100> pool; //same as above }
this has no memory overhead, as the list hook can be used by the pool.
here's the code: http://www.boostpro.com/vault/index.php?action=downloadfile&filename=intrusive_pool.hpp&directory=Memory& _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost