Subject: Re: [boost] [context] mini-review comments
From: Oliver Kowalke (oliver.kowalke_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-01-14 03:38:26
Hi Jeff,
Am 13.01.2012 23:22, schrieb Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr.:
> Hmmm...I would consider that an oversight. Any operation (like
> calling operator new) which changes global state should be documented
> as such. With operator new, you're (likely) changing the amount of
> free store space, there's possibly the acquisition of locks
> (depending on implementation), and, I don't know, maybe some other
> effects observable outside of the local context. If you put the pimpl
> in the stack space via the stack allocator, then that changes
> whatever state the stack allocator has outside of the constructor.
> Example: If I write a merge sort function that allocates extra
> temporary scratch space, I would consider the documentation
> incomplete if it didn't mention where that scratch space is retrieved
> from. [...]
Hmmm - I've some doubt to buy this. AFAIK the STL documentation does not
define how vector, list etc. should be implemented - it is up to the
implementor and how it is implemented may change between platforms/vendors.
> > I don't think it's a good idea to guarantee (as much as one is able
> > to,
> >> anyway) a one-size-fits-all default stack size for all present
> >> and future platforms for all time and across all dimensions and
> >> parallel universes.
> >
> > default_stacksize() was only introduced for more comfort for the
> > lib users. I could also remove this function - but some user might
> > ask what stacksize they should use.
> >
>
> I'm simply pointing out that the documented semantics of
> default_stacksize() strike me as over-specified ("256 kB", regardless
> of platform), and I was (implicitly) asking, e.g., if you had
> considered this. Based on your above comment, it appears I didn't
> make my point clear enough...
so you suggest to remove it? sorry - I don't get it.
>
> Do you know, by chance, how to determine the
> (default?) stack size on Windows (7, specifically)?
>
I'm sorry I don't know. It should be the stack size the Windows
applications take by average?
Maybe 256kB might be OK.
regards,
Oliver