Subject: Re: [boost] [thread] thread_specific_ptr performance
From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-01-12 12:36:43
strasser_at_[hidden] wrote:
> I guess this was the reason to introduce a "key" in the first place? a
> similar behaviour could be implemented using the vector-technique. the
> key would have to be stored in the vector at the allocated index along
> with the pointer so thread_specific_ptr::get() can decide if the
> pointer is left-over from a previous thread_specific_ptr or an actual
> pointer belonging to this thread_specific_ptr, and reset() can destroy
> it.
This works (at the expense of doubling the vector size, but it would still
beat a map). You'd also need the old cleanup function though.