From -5502940183217776577 X-Google-Thread: f78e5,27c2a088314ec0a9 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!proxad.net!news2.telebyte.nl!border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!peer-uk.news.demon.net!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!stump.algebra.com!devnull From: tom_usenet@hotmail.com (Tom Widmer) Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: should std::vector<> exponential growth rate be followed strictly in times of low availabe memory. Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 22:29:30 GMT Organization: [posted via Easynet UK] Lines: 25 Sender: mail2news@demon.net Approved: fjh@cs.mu.oz.au (Fergus Henderson , moderator of comp.std.c++) Message-ID: <4fvjo0t07isfber4rblifh56jmiq2glrnj@4ax.com> References: <417E434E.5000209@bubblescope.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: news.news.demon.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1099607977 26337 158.152.254.254 (4 Nov 2004 22:39:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 22:39:37 +0000 (UTC) X-Robomod: STUMP, ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at cs.mu.OZ.AU X-Path: comp-std-cpp-robomod!not-for-mail X-Received: (from fjh@localhost) by mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.9/Submit) id iA4MTUa1023410; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 09:29:30 +1100 (EST) X-Delivered-To: std-c++@ucar.edu X-Spamscanner: mailbox6.ucsd.edu (v1.5 Aug 25 2004 09:28:35, 1.1/5.0 3.0.0) X-Authentication-Warning: mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU: fjh set sender to devnull@stump.algebra.com using -f X-Greylist: Delayed for 01:13:00 by milter-greylist-1.4 (mailbox6.ucsd.edu [132.239.1.58]); Thu, 04 Nov 2004 03:17:23 -0800 (PST) X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 2.0/32.652 X-Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ X-MailScanner: PASSED (v1.2.8 65166 iA4BHLFM075051 mailbox6.ucsd.edu) Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.std.c++:3283 On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 03:43:46 GMT, dhruvbird@gmx.net ("Dhruv Matani") wrote: >Yes, but it would obviously be a nonsense implementation as you have >mentioned. I'm looking more at making it allowable by the standard in >such low memory situations to deviate from the exponential growth >policy. And the standard already allows that, since it doesn't specify "exponential growth", but rather amortized constant time push_back. However, I don't think a 1GB+ std::vector is a very good idea in any case. If you use malloc, then you get access to realloc, or you should perhaps be using a custom allocator, or redesigning your algorithm, perhaps to allow a segmented container of some kind, or to use less RAM. Tom --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ]