Philippe A. Bouchard wrote:
"Larry Evans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
Only if you want to collect cycles or provide some other means for
accessing the arcs in the pointer graph. As a matter of fact, it may
be better to do somewhat li
"David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> [...]
>> That is a very clean approach, and assuming it's OK to keep the
>> the sole copy of p in storage_policy, even efficient.
>
> I'm not sure anyone would use a pointer that kept multiple copies of
> p. Wouldn't that make it pretty fat?
Yeah, t
"David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [...]
>> What about the extra size due to the common compiler feature, "no
>> empty base optimization in the presence of MI?" That was another
>> p
"Larry Evans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
> Only if you want to collect cycles or provide some other means for
> accessing the arcs in the pointer graph. As a matter of fact, it may
> be better to do somewhat like shared_ptr does, i.e.
"David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [...]
> That's OK if the class which ultimately takes posession of p (not
> base_type, I think, but storage... or is it ownership?) is _required_
> to take it by reference. Does such a requirement
"David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [...]
> What about the extra size due to the common compiler feature, "no
> empty base optimization in the presence of MI?" That was another
> problem solved by using a chain of policy templates.
>
Terje Slettebø <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>From: "Jason House" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> I have two comments about the proposal
...
>> 2. Section 2.5 (Different Declarations) rubs me the wrong way. Thr
>> proposal does say that some people dislike this, and I guess I'm one of
>> them.
...
I wrote:
>>> I don't think this is a new idea. It's a simple for of
>>> transfer-of-ownership.
And Dave Held wrote:
>> Yup. It's a member-initializer version of ScopeGuard(TM).
And then I wrote something which was at best badly-phrased:
> I love it when people put trademarked names on trivial
On Thursday, January 30, 2003, at 08:53 PM, Greg Colvin wrote:
Sigh...
To be clear, I'll be happy to see a better syntax
in the next standard -- auto_ptr was the best we
could do with the syntax we had, but ...
Agreed on all points. And glad to have your continued support for a
better tomor
At 06:24 PM 1/30/2003, Howard Hinnant wrote:
>On Tuesday, January 28, 2003, at 11:19 PM, Greg Colvin wrote:
>
>>My problem with auto_ptr isn't so much the semantics, which
>>have proved useful and are probably the minimum needed to
>>solve the problem that the committee wanted solved. And it
>>is
> I guess it would help if the syntax for all four possibilities
> (normal function, templated function, normal function object templated
> function object) made it into the Boost.Test documentation.
Syntax is basically the same for all simple (not parameterized tests) cases.
Though I admit
Do you want this to be implemented as part of Boost.Test or Boost.Build?
> * Test cases/suites need to be defined in a tree hierarchy, where branches
> are never run if the parent test doesn't pass.
This could be done in terms of Boost.Test. Not in a current version though.
> * These test cases m
On Tuesday, January 28, 2003, at 11:19 PM, Greg Colvin wrote:
My problem with auto_ptr isn't so much the semantics, which
have proved useful and are probably the minimum needed to
solve the problem that the committee wanted solved. And it
isn't so much the "move as copy" syntax that Howard disl
"David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Beman Dawes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [...]
>> Which is the best approach is very application dependent. I never
>> came to a firm conclusion as to which approach was better for
>> smart po
"David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > [...]
>> > smart_ptr(P p)
>> > : storage(p), ownership(p), checking(), conversion()
>> > { chec
"David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
b1c5tk$pbf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b1c5tk$pbf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > [...]
> > > ~ref_counted()
> > > {
> > > delete pCount_;
> > > }
> > > [...]
Unfortunately, my latest solution brings up a nice little g
"Beman Dawes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [...]
> The use case I was interested in was an array being managed,
> and the conversion to T* also being present.
Ouch! I haven't worked through the details, but I have a gut level
feeling that it'
At 05:41 PM 1/30/2003, David B. Held wrote:
>"Beman Dawes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [...]
>> Which is the best approach is very application dependent. I never
>> came to a firm conclusion as to which approach was better for
>> smart poin
"Jeff Garland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since the original copyright holders are effectively changing the
> terms I don't see why this would present a problem -- they are
> certainly free to change the terms.
Yes, that's my understanding. Thanks for the confirmation.
>> I understand that ther
Hi all,
When boost threads library is configured with pthreads, threads are created
using the following code:
res = pthread_create(&m_thread, 0, &thread_proxy, ¶m);
However, on Solaris this implies the default contentionscope of
PTHREAD_SCOPE_PROCESS (vs. PTHREAD_SCOPE_SYSTEM). I didn't build
Philippe A. Bouchard wrote:
[snip]
>
> Oh no, don't tell me GC_malloc was working this way ;)
>
> BTW gc_header *must* have (ip_descriptor *) ?
>
Only if you want to collect cycles or provide some other means for
accessing the arcs in the pointer graph. As a matter of fact, it may
be better to
"Beman Dawes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [...]
> Which is the best approach is very application dependent. I never
> came to a firm conclusion as to which approach was better for
> smart pointers; both have advantages.
Well, we've managed to
At 04:55 PM 1/29/2003, David B. Held wrote:
>"David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [...]
>> Then you've indeed got a problem. There were indications in
>> some of Beman's earlier explorations that the orthogonal policy
>> decomposit
Peter Dimov said:
> From: "DudeSan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > No, this won't work. boost::bind returns a function object, an
>> object
>> with
>> > operator() defined, not a function pointer. You can't use bind() to
>> create
>> > a function pointer.
>>
>> So, are there any suggestions or ideas tha
"Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
005901c2c8a3$e5f86180$1d00a8c0@pdimov2">news:005901c2c8a3$e5f86180$1d00a8c0@pdimov2...
> From: "David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > ~ref_counted()
> > {
> > delete pCount_;
> > }
> >
> > bool release(P
"Larry Evans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Philippe A. Bouchard wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >
> > I guess it would also be possible to allocate a "shifted object" into
some
> > specific memory page, so operator delete will be able to quickly detect
>
"David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > [...]
> > smart_ptr(P p)
> > : storage(p), ownership(p), checking(), conversion()
> > { checking::on_init(p) }
> >
> > 1) storage(p) throws
>
> Yo
From: "DudeSan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > No, this won't work. boost::bind returns a function object, an object
> with
> > operator() defined, not a function pointer. You can't use bind() to
> create
> > a function pointer.
>
> So, are there any suggestions or ideas that I could use?
>
> I'm trying t
"Greg Colvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I notice that a special operator new must be used
> to create objects pointed to by shifted_ptr. Is
> this really necessaty? It prevents shifted_ptr
> from just being an alternative implementation o
Philippe A. Bouchard wrote:
[snip]
I guess it would also be possible to allocate a "shifted object" into some
specific memory page, so operator delete will be able to quickly detect
weither the object is shifted or not. This way it would be possible to
overload the main operator new.
I think
"David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
b19hpd$j79$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b19hpd$j79$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
> While the generated documention is ok, it is a bit hard to read, because
> so much of it appears superfluous. Also, you should consider looking
> at other Boost docume
From: "David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ~ref_counted()
> {
> delete pCount_;
> }
>
> bool release(P const&)
> {
> if (!--*pCount_) return true;
> pCount_ = 0;
> return false;
> }
Doesn't release()
--On Thursday, January 30, 2003 7:45 PM +0100 Gennaro Prota
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But where is the true proposal? I just know this:
http://anubis.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2002/n1406.
pdf
which seems rather a magazine article to me.
The template typedef is being semi-formally
"Thomas Witt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Thanks for submitting. I will contact you as soon as I have found a
> review manager. This might take some days.
>
> BTW Volunteers, anybody?
>
> Thomas Witt
>
> Boost Review Wizard
Very appreciate
>From: "Jason House" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 2. Section 2.5 (Different Declarations) rubs me the wrong way. Thr
> proposal does say that some people dislike this, and I guess I'm one of
> them.
>
> If
> template class X;
> template typedef foo X;
> then I'm opposed to typeof(X) != typeof(foo)
A
"David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
> In real code, I'm sure that's true. However, for the kind of
> meaningless benchmark-rustling we're engaged in now, I bet the
> class-specific allocator works great ;-)
[...]
> I guess i
"David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [...]
>> That's a very imprecise description, and exactly what I mean by
>> "not sure what you really wanted." Even though you think you have
>> an
At 11:19 AM 1/30/2003, Douglas Gregor wrote:
>On Thursday 30 January 2003 11:05 am, David Abrahams wrote:
>> Douglas Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > On Thursday 30 January 2003 05:41 am, David Abrahams wrote:
>> >> The subject says it all. We should find a workaround for this or
>> >> it'l
At 11:05 AM 1/30/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
>> One option would be to dump the tests in some XML format, because we
can
>> easily transform that into the various HTML pages we'd want with an
XSLT
>> processor. Sourceforge has xsltproc available on its servers...
>
>Any format that can be proces
At 01:10 PM 1/30/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
>Greg Colvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> At 08:30 AM 1/30/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
>>>"Jeff Garland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
Glenn --
Since this mail seems to have been buried in the usual wave of
boost mail, I'll take
At 11:29 AM 1/30/2003, Douglas Gregor wrote:
>On Thursday 30 January 2003 11:05 am, David Abrahams wrote:
>> > [Yes, I'm beginning to sound like a broken record, but I really
>> > don't think we should ever be generating documentation directly from
>> > C++ code.]
>>
>> I can't see any relevance.
At 12:20 PM 1/29/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
>This is a minor complaint about the wonderful automatically generated
>page at http://boost.sourceforge.net/regression-logs/, and perhaps
>also which tables we're generating and how we're generating them.
>
>When I'm interested in finding out how a lib
I'm sorry if I repeat some past discussion, I have not followed this
discussion thread from the beginning. (I read the past several posts to
make sure I didn't write anything too stupid)
I read http://anubis.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2002/n1406.pdf
that genny referred to.
I have two c
"David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [...]
> That's a very imprecise description, and exactly what I mean by
> "not sure what you really wanted." Even though you think you have
> an answer now, I want to encourage you to write down ve
Greg Colvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 08:30 AM 1/30/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
>>"Jeff Garland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Glenn --
>>>
>>> Since this mail seems to have been buried in the usual wave of
>>> boost mail, I'll take a stab at it so you at least get a response - FWIW...
> No, this won't work. boost::bind returns a function object, an object
with
> operator() defined, not a function pointer. You can't use bind() to
create
> a function pointer.
So, are there any suggestions or ideas that I could use?
I'm trying to make the wndProc point at a member function. I've
>From: "Gennaro Prota" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 12:20:32 -, "John Maddock"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Can you show, with an example, why the code used for named template
> >> arguments can't reasonably use an expression?
> >
> >It doesn't have access to one, only a ty
--- Peter Dimov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: "Gennaro Prota" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:19:53 -0500, David Abrahams
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >Peter D. has effectively argued in the past that void *is* a supertype
> > >of everything (well, every object type,
"Philippe A. Bouchard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
b1a99m$fil$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b1a99m$fil$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
> shifted_ptr only works with "shifted objects" allocated with placement
> operator new (size_t, shifted_type const &). In theory it would be
possible
> to displa
One of the many things I'm attempting to do right now is to improve the
testing of Boost.Threads. I'd really like to use a more complex testing
system than seems available with the current Boost tools. Or maybe I'm
wrong, and it is possible. Here's a description of my requirements.
* Test cases
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Philippe,
Philippe A. Bouchard wrote:
| Greeting,
|
| I would like to request a formal review for my library:
shifted_ptr. It
| consists of a smart pointer optimizing dynamic memory allocations and
| deallocations on the heap, thus lower require
David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I can't judge that part, but I can say that this is an incredibly useful thing
> to do, as hinted at near the bottom of
> http://www.gotw.ca/gotw/008.htm (search for "base class"). It's one
> reason my implementation of an exception-safe STL was a lot
From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > Your test doesn't seem to terminate for me in a reasonable amount of
> > time (minutes) in any configuration.
>
> That was Cygwin GCC-3.2.
You made me download it.
GNU C++ version 3.2 20020927 (prerelease)
Cygwin
GNU libstdc++ version 20020927
BO
At 11:38 AM 1/30/2003, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>"Greg Colvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> I read a paper yesterday from the latest OOPSLA proceedings
>> that argued that a class-specific new is almost never a win
>> compared to a high-quality general purpose allocator like
>> LEA.
>
"David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > [...]
>> > Here, r_ can't tell if foo is being destructed, or just r_, and that
>> > could be a very important difference.
>>
>> It usually isn't.
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:43:49 -0600, "David B. Held"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Well, I thought Herb's proposal was more or less "definitive". Is that
>not what's likely to be presented to the committee? If we got template
>aliasing as you describe above, then Herb's proposal is just fine with
>
From: "Gennaro Prota" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:19:53 -0500, David Abrahams
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Peter D. has effectively argued in the past that void *is* a supertype
> >of everything (well, every object type, as opposed e.g. to
> >function/function pointer types).
"Greg Colvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> I read a paper yesterday from the latest OOPSLA proceedings
> that argued that a class-specific new is almost never a win
> compared to a high-quality general purpose allocator like
> LEA.
Pointer?
Andrei
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 12:20:32 -, "John Maddock"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I see that you haven't replied to this for long time now. So either
>> you are bored from the question, or it wasn't clear enough. To see if
>> it is the second case I thought to reformulate it:
>
>Well only for a day
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:19:53 -0500, David Abrahams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Peter D. has effectively argued in the past that void *is* a supertype
>of everything (well, every object type, as opposed e.g. to
>function/function pointer types). Given the foregoing discussion
>about squares and re
David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>
>> You might need to use a lower n. Here's what I get (randomly choosing
>> g++/mingw):
>>
>> GNU C++ version 2.95.3-6 (mingw special)
>> Win32
>
> Wow, that's a much bigger improvement than I saw! I wonde
"Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > There is a test in libs/smart_ptr/test called shared_ptr_alloc_test.cpp
> that
>> > you can use.
>>
>> Your test doesn't seem to terminate for me in a reasona
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 15:13:19 +0100, Terje Slettebø
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>> Roughly speaking B is a base of D if and only if
>> the base-specifier-list of D contains a class name for B or for a
>> class of which B is a base. Of course you can see if that's the case
>> by knowing the def
"Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> You might need to use a lower n. Here's what I get (randomly choosing
> g++/mingw):
>
> GNU C++ version 2.95.3-6 (mingw special)
> Win32
> SGI standard library
> BOOST_HAS_THREADS: (not defined)
> BOOST_SP_USE_STD_ALLOCATOR: (not defined)
> BOOST_SP_US
From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > There is a test in libs/smart_ptr/test called
shared_ptr_alloc_test.cpp
> > that
> >> > you can use.
> >
"Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > There is a test in libs/smart_ptr/test called shared_ptr_alloc_test.cpp
> that
>> > you can use.
>>
>> Your test doesn't seem to terminate for me in a reasona
David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
>>> > I've taken the liberty to convert the patch into
>> detail/quick_allocator.hpp.
>>> > #define BOOST_SP_USE_
Gennaro Prota wrote:
>
> to avoid changes not forced by compiler bugs. Incidentally, I noticed
> that if you add a default argument
>
> template
> static yes check(D const volatile *, T = 0);
> static no check(B const volatile *, int = 0);
>
> and write:
>
> sizeof(checker::check( (C()
Somewhere in the E.U., le 30/01/2003
Bonjour
In article <005b01c2c87b$f8d90520$1d00a8c0@pdimov2>,
"Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: "Hubert Holin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [...]
>
> > but if I have a templated functions instead
> >
> >template
> >void ft(int)
> >{
>
From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > There is a test in libs/smart_ptr/test called shared_ptr_alloc_test.cpp
that
> > you can use.
>
> Your test doesn't seem to terminate for me in a reasonable amount of
> time (minutes) in any configuration.
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:34:44 +0200, "Rani Sharoni"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Gennaro Prota" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> John, unfortunately I have to turn off my computer now. I had just
>> hacked up a version that seems to work with gcc, but I don't want to
>> post it before a be
"Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > I've taken the liberty to convert the patch into
> detail/quick_allocator.hpp.
>> > #define BOOST_SP_USE_QUICK_ALLOCATOR to make shared_ptr use it.
>> > share
At 09:12 AM 1/30/2003, Peter Dimov wrote:
>From: "Greg Colvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> At 06:23 AM 1/30/2003, Peter Dimov wrote:
>> >
>> >To be fair, a factor of two improvement cannot just be shrugged off. But
>one
>> >point to keep in mind is that
>> >
>> >shared_ptr px(new X);
>> >
>> >performs t
"David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [...]
> > Here, r_ can't tell if foo is being destructed, or just r_, and that
> > could be a very important difference.
>
> It usually isn't. I'm tempted to assert that it shouldn't be.
> When d
On Thursday 30 January 2003 11:05 am, David Abrahams wrote:
> > [Yes, I'm beginning to sound like a broken record, but I really
> > don't think we should ever be generating documentation directly from
> > C++ code.]
>
> I can't see any relevance. Care to explain?
I stated that _very_ poorly. I me
Jeremy Siek wrote:
> ghost> vector< vertex > alternative_s ;
> ghost> iterator_property_map< vector::iterator,
> ghost> property_map > alternative = ...
> ghost>
> ghost> The problem is that I have to pass alternative_s.begin() when
> ghost> constructig alternative, but I might want to add n
"Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I'm not all set up to run those tests and measure the times, which is
>> why I was hoping Philippe would check it out.
>
> There is a test in libs/smart_ptr/test called
> shared_ptr_alloc_test.cpp that you can use.
OK.
>> > quick_allocator doesn't c
From: "Hubert Holin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[...]
> but if I have a templated functions instead
>
>template
>void ft(int)
>{
>}
>
> then the following invocation will not compile
>
>test->add(BOOST_TEST_CASE(::boost::bind(&ft, 1)));
This is a C++ problem. You may need to first c
On Thursday 30 January 2003 11:05 am, David Abrahams wrote:
> Douglas Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thursday 30 January 2003 05:41 am, David Abrahams wrote:
> >> The subject says it all. We should find a workaround for this or
> >> it'll screw up all vc6 testing pretty badly.
> >
> > W
From: "DudeSan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hey there!
>
> I've had some problems trying to make a function pointer to a specific
> windows callback function. It's defined as "LRESULT CALLBACK WndProc(
> HWND
> hWnd, UINT message, WPARAM wParam, LPARAM lParam )", however, any sore
> attempt I try to get
At 08:16 AM 1/30/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
>"Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>
>>> Would you indulge me and try the benchmark again with the enclosed
>>> shared_count patch applied and #undef BOOST_SP_USE_STD_ALLOCATOR? I
>>> don't reall
From: "Greg Colvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> At 06:23 AM 1/30/2003, Peter Dimov wrote:
> >
> >To be fair, a factor of two improvement cannot just be shrugged off. But
one
> >point to keep in mind is that
> >
> >shared_ptr px(new X);
> >
> >performs two allocations. We can optimize the count allocation
"David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
> I'm not all set up to run those tests and measure the times, which is
> why I was hoping Philippe would check it out.
I'm setting up the readonly cvs right now (only have latest 1.28). I
From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I've taken the liberty to convert the patch into
detail/quick_allocator.hpp.
> > #define BOOST_SP_USE_QUICK_ALLOCATOR to make shared_ptr use it.
> > shared_ptr_alloc_test.cpp has been updated, too. You can
Douglas Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thursday 30 January 2003 05:41 am, David Abrahams wrote:
>> The subject says it all. We should find a workaround for this or
>> it'll screw up all vc6 testing pretty badly.
>
> When did you first start seeing this? Last night?
Yes.
> I didn't cha
Douglas Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wednesday 29 January 2003 12:20 pm, David Abrahams wrote:
>> It seems to me that while lib developers may be interested in the "big
>> table", most users, unless they care extraordinarily about
>> portability, will want to know about individual compi
Greg Colvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I read a paper yesterday from the latest OOPSLA proceedings
> that argued that a class-specific new is almost never a win
> compared to a high-quality general purpose allocator like
> LEA.
In real code, I'm sure that's true. However, for the kind of
mea
>From: "Rani Sharoni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "Gennaro Prota" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > John, unfortunately I have to turn off my computer now. I had just
> > hacked up a version that seems to work with gcc, but I don't want to
> > po
At 08:30 AM 1/30/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
>"Jeff Garland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Glenn --
>>
>> Since this mail seems to have been buried in the usual wave of
>> boost mail, I'll take a stab at it so you at least get a response - FWIW...
>>
>>
>>> A licensing question for everyone:
>
>From: "John Maddock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >This is tested on Comeau 4.3, Intel C++ 6/7 and g++ 3.2.
>
> Except it *doesn't work* !
>
> The problem is that your static assertion don't test anything, changing
to:
>
> //typedef char TestA[is_base_and_derived::result]; // Multiple bases
> (error on
At 06:23 AM 1/30/2003, Peter Dimov wrote:
>From: "David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> "Philippe A. Bouchard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> b19hhg$i2m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b19hhg$i2m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > [...]
>> > list shifted_ptr took 7.1966276647 seconds to reconstruct 2000
>
"Jeff Garland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Glenn --
>
> Since this mail seems to have been buried in the usual wave of
> boost mail, I'll take a stab at it so you at least get a response - FWIW...
>
>
>> A licensing question for everyone:
>>
>> Is there any problem with submitting, for possib
Gennaro Prota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 05:36:37 -0500, David Abrahams
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Lars is looking for a volunteer to rewrite the software if you're
>>interested...
>
> If it is in PHP then I don't think I'm the right person :-)
He did use the word "re
Gennaro Prota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Actually the reason for my question is a little strange :-) I hope to
> explain it in understandable English: Andrej said
>
> "void is hardly a supertype of everything"
>
>
> Rewording it, it is: "void is not a supertype of everything".
>
> This imme
"Rani Sharoni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
b1bd2p$i97$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b1bd2p$i97$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Gennaro Prota" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 12:38:36 -, "John Maddock"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTE
"Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> Would you indulge me and try the benchmark again with the enclosed
>> shared_count patch applied and #undef BOOST_SP_USE_STD_ALLOCATOR? I
>> don't really know what's going on under the covers in the SGI
>
On Wednesday 29 January 2003 12:20 pm, David Abrahams wrote:
> It seems to me that while lib developers may be interested in the "big
> table", most users, unless they care extraordinarily about
> portability, will want to know about individual compiler results. I
> wonder if we shouldn't be assem
Glenn --
Since this mail seems to have been buried in the usual wave of
boost mail, I'll take a stab at it so you at least get a response - FWIW...
> A licensing question for everyone:
>
> Is there any problem with submitting, for possible inclusion in
> Boost, a library that was previously r
On Thursday 30 January 2003 05:41 am, David Abrahams wrote:
> The subject says it all. We should find a workaround for this or
> it'll screw up all vc6 testing pretty badly.
When did you first start seeing this? Last night? I didn't change anything...
Doug
___
"Gennaro Prota" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 12:38:36 -, "John Maddock"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Except it *doesn't work* !
> >
>
> John, unfortunately I have to turn off my computer now. I had just
> hacked up
1 - 100 of 132 matches
Mail list logo
