Wesley W. Garland wrote:
>You know, all they'd need to do is overload the STL constructors to
>use APR pools
>
Actually, it's the allocators that would have to be overridden, not the
constructors. And you, as the user of the stahdard library, are free to
override the allocators (both ::operator new and std::allocator used by
containers).
>instead of malloc and they'd be have a product I'd use
>in a heartbeat.
>
>
Not that I can see how pools would be better for C++ object
allocation... it sort of defeats the "resource allocation is
construction" idea if your "freed" objects hang around in memory until
you happen to clear a pool.
>But then it wouldn't meet the ISO standard. Hmm...
>
>
In fact, the standard doesn't specify that ::operator new and friends
should call malloc(). The library is free to use a different allocator.
-- Brane
|