On 19 May 2010, at 02:58, Chris Knight wrote: > Ah, makes sense. Yeah would be insane to change the malloc replacement > mid-stream so an alternate to create_with_allocator is nice. > > But you also bring up an important question; I argue that you should only be > able to do this on a top-level pool, not on a child pool...(In other words, > create_with_allocator would not take a parent pool pointer.)
I disagree. You should be able to have the parent pool manage it. Example: you have a shm pool. If it's top-level, what's to stop the shm segment disappearing from under it? But if the shm segment is created on a pool, and then the shm pool is created on the same pool (or a child), then you ensure the right sequencing. Feel free to rubbish me. It's nearly 4am here, and I can't sleep :( -- Nick Kew
