From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-12-05 12:50:57
--- In boost_at_[hidden], scleary_at_j... wrote:
>
> Maybe. If you have small object sizes, you can cut in underneath
the memory
> overhead of most system-supplied allocators. This is because these
system
> allocators have to store the size of the block along with the
block, so for,
> say, int-sized objects, you get 50% wasted memory. So once you
allocate
> FirstArraySize/2 chunks from a pool, your memory waste at worst-
case is the
> same as the system memory waste, until you start deallocating.
All this is good documentation of usage considerations :)
> > That's the point isn't it? It really is magic!
>
> It should be easy to use, but IMO memory allocation is not a huge
overhead
> in real-world programs. In my mind, pools should be used more for
While I might agree that many applications do not have performance
issues, for many "real-world" applications memory management is a
huge factor in performance. Products like smart heap wouldn't exist
if everyone could get by with the usual performance....
Jeff