"Dean Michael Berris" <mikhailberis@gmail.com> wrote in message news:6adba9f0705080520h27fcf20coc6b353141e18e8f8@mail.gmail.com...
On 5/7/07, Michael Gopshtein <mgopshtein@gmail.com> wrote:
As a solution I was thinking about adding a "defragment" function to memory pool, which will compact it by moving live objects to free cells at the "beginning" of the pool. Such feature can be implemented with help of additional "index" table of pointers. Of cause, instead of returning pointer to allocated object, the pool will return a wrapper object, actually pointing to that index table (for which separate "classical" pool can be used).
Maybe you're looking for the "release_memory" method in the pool interface. If you're using the pool_allocator as a replacement to the standard allocators, it might be interesting to note that the documentation mentions how to use "release_memory":
http://boost.org/libs/pool/doc/interfaces.html
...
release_memory: "Frees every memory block that doesn't have any allocated chunks" This might be useful, I agree. And the chances to get such free blocks can be improved by using smaller block size, although it's hard for me to predict what can be the ratio of "free" blocks, even if total number of objects is relatively small.
Hope this helps.
-- Dean Michael C. Berris http://cplusplus-soup.blogspot.com/ mikhailberis AT gmail DOT com +63 928 7291459 _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost