At 5:50 PM +0100 2/28/06, Ion Gaztañaga wrote:
The real space the user can overwrite is dependent on the "null" size of the memory algorithm and the null index. The compilation of all that structure for a user that just want to create a shared memory segment would be an overkill.
I think that a simple shared_memory primitive (that just creates a segment and maps it) is useful because we have other operating system primitives (mapped file, mutex, semaphore).
At present the "simple" shared_memory already has a header region. I'm not sure what is there, other than the reference count (which I need to follow up on later). I haven't looked at mapped file in that regard.
Both of these are attempting to get across the idea that the differentiator between them and the underlying primitive shared_memory, heap memory, ... is that these higher level constructs provide support for managing allocation from the raw block of memory.
Yes, but it also allows anonymous object construction, named object construction and other features. I like "managed_shared_memory" because is shorter than other alternatives and compatible with the "segment_manager" concept. Any "managed_xxx" enemy out there?
I was thinking of the various kinds of object allocation and such as being specific instances of the broad class of "managing allocation". I think a relatively generic term is needed here because there are lots of different detailed bits of functionality to be covered by the name.