> Can anybody shed light on why fast_pool_allocator benefit ratio is so
different
> for different compilers ?
It's because the malloc() and new speeds differ by compiler. If you're
really interested, there's an outdated article in WDJ April '97 that
compares malloc() and new speeds of several compilers: VC++ 4.2 was slowest,
Borland C++ 5.1 was faster, and Watcom C++ 10.6 and Symantec C++ 7.2 the
fastest. Of course, these are all *old* compilers! :)
As John pointed out, you're not going to see much benefit (if any) when the
standard library contains a pool allocator itself (as does STLport and
glibc).
-Steve
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
