"Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> "Philippe A. Bouchard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Lock mechanism was added to shifted_ptr<>:
>> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boost/files/shifted_ptr.zip
>> >
>> > Benchmarks are also updated. Still shifted_ptr<> is using less memory
> and
>> > twice faster for reconstruction time.
>>
>> Almost.
>>
>> > Notes:
>> > - The first memory map report is not precise (shifted_ptr<U>).
>> > - The reports were reordered (shifted_ptr<U>, shifted_ptr<T> &
>> > shared_ptr<T>).
>> >
>> > I believe there is not that much left to do besides optimizations.
>>
>> Have you tried a comparison against a shared_ptr using an optimized
>> count allocator?
>
> One easy way to estimate the impact of an optimized allocator is to #define
> BOOST_SP_USE_STD_ALLOCATOR, to make shared_ptr use std::allocator. On SGI
> derived STLs, std::allocator is usually faster than plain new.
Yeah; I'm pretty sure that my specialized allocator was faster still,
since it just allocated fixed-sized blocks and linked them back into a
free-list. It was pretty trivial to implement on top of a std::deque
of POD unions.
--
David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
