U++ framework: U++ Core

Home » U++ Library support » U++ Core » Ptr improve

Show: Today's Messages :: Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend

Re: Ptr improve [message #32528 is a reply to message #32516]

Mon, 23 May 2011 22:37

mirek
Messages: 14291
Registered: November 2005

Ultimate Member

cbpporter wrote on Mon, 23 May 2011 07:52

Here is an idea that has been going around in my head for a while: what if we combine the U++ way with GC.

GC is great, but the cost of mark & sweep can be to much for some cases.

Traditional memory management is problematic, and we have a relatively big cost of allocation/deallocation.

Well, that is relative, average allocation/deallocation is about pretty fast in U++.... (about the same as link/unlink in double-linked list + a couple of simple loads)

Quote:

With the U++ we have everything belongs somewhere.

GC is quite incompatible with the concept of destructors.

Quote:

But what if we kept the principle intact for non heap allocated objects, but for heap allocated one, the destructor would only mark the object for deletion, and it would actually get deleted latter.

IMO results in unmaintainable mess.

Besides, GC AFAIK is still not a part of C++. And you cannot realistically add it by library - the best you can do is stochastic approach (Boehm), which works fine, unless you are processing white noise Wink

Still, what is unclear to my is why to complicate your code with heap if you do not have to? The whole mission of U++ is to eliminate universal shared heap as much as possible.

Mirek

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]

		Ptr improve By: tojocky on Mon, 16 May 2011 14:07
		Re: Ptr improve By: mirek on Mon, 16 May 2011 15:05
		Re: Ptr improve By: tojocky on Mon, 16 May 2011 15:31
		Re: Ptr improve By: tojocky on Mon, 16 May 2011 16:06
		Re: Ptr improve By: mirek on Mon, 16 May 2011 23:13
		Re: Ptr improve By: kohait00 on Wed, 18 May 2011 11:40
		Re: Ptr improve By: tojocky on Wed, 18 May 2011 13:12
		Re: Ptr improve By: kohait00 on Thu, 19 May 2011 19:09
		Re: Ptr improve By: tojocky on Fri, 20 May 2011 08:32
		Re: Ptr improve By: kohait00 on Fri, 20 May 2011 11:04
		Re: Ptr improve By: cbpporter on Fri, 20 May 2011 11:51
		Re: Ptr improve By: kohait00 on Fri, 20 May 2011 13:03
		Re: Ptr improve By: mirek on Fri, 20 May 2011 13:19
		Re: Ptr improve By: kohait00 on Fri, 20 May 2011 14:43
		Re: Ptr improve By: kohait00 on Mon, 23 May 2011 13:34
		Re: Ptr improve By: cbpporter on Mon, 23 May 2011 13:52
		Re: Ptr improve By: kohait00 on Mon, 23 May 2011 15:23
		Re: Ptr improve By: dolik.rce on Mon, 23 May 2011 18:26
		Re: Ptr improve By: mirek on Mon, 23 May 2011 22:37
		Re: Ptr improve By: kohait00 on Mon, 23 May 2011 22:41
		Re: Ptr improve By: cbpporter on Tue, 24 May 2011 09:25
		Re: Ptr improve By: mirek on Tue, 24 May 2011 17:46
		Re: Ptr improve By: mr_ped on Tue, 24 May 2011 18:28
		Re: Ptr improve By: cbpporter on Tue, 24 May 2011 22:44
		Re: Ptr improve By: mirek on Sat, 28 May 2011 20:57
		Re: Ptr improve By: mr_ped on Wed, 25 May 2011 09:34
		Re: Ptr improve By: kohait00 on Wed, 25 May 2011 10:27
		Re: Ptr improve By: cbpporter on Wed, 25 May 2011 12:09
		Re: Ptr improve By: kohait00 on Wed, 25 May 2011 12:19
		Re: Ptr improve By: mirek on Sat, 28 May 2011 21:10

Previous Topic:	FIX: UPP::Scan returns int64 for INT_V
Next Topic:	GetCurrentDirectory() Doesn't contain the \ is this a bug?

Goto Forum:

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

] [

]

Current Time: Thu Sep 10 16:55:43 GMT+2 2026

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01491 seconds