On Sep 25, 2013, at 2:21 PM, Chandler Carruth <[email protected]> wrote:
> I also know that regardless of the solution, Marshall has thoughts on the
> best way to factor this within the library, but those are orthogonal.
Benjamin --
Here's my suggestion.
No matter how this comes out, I think having one place in the library where we
allocate memory "in a default" manner is a good thing.
So let's do that first.
My suggestion is
1) Define two routines (probably in <new>):
_LIBCPP_ALWAYS_INLINE void *__allocate ( std::size_t sz ) { return
::operator new ( sz ); }
_LIBCPP_ALWAYS_INLINE void *__deallocate ( void * p ) { return
::operator delete ( p ); }
[ MIght need different names, since hash_table has a __deallocate and dynarray
has an __allocate and __deallocate ]
and call them from the places in <memory> that you noted.
2) Make sure that works, then switch them (__allocate/__deallocate) to use new
char []/delete [] and make sure that your optimization still works.
Then, switch them back while we figure out the correct way to solve this.
3) Next, find all the places in libc++ where we call ::operator new/delete, and
switch them over to calling __allocate/__deallocate.
That way, when we figure out the best way to solve this, we'll reap the
benefits library-wide.
How does that sound to you?
-- Marshall
Marshall Clow Idio Software <mailto:[email protected]>
A.D. 1517: Martin Luther nails his 95 Theses to the church door and is promptly
moderated down to (-1, Flamebait).
-- Yu Suzuki
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
