> I would like to gauge the community reaction to a potential patch that would > move code that performs memory management into the ".cpp". I think this would be fine for the most part. TPipedTransport should be fine. That's actually not a very important class.
> I would also be > interested in hearing if there are any reasons other than potential > performance gains for keeping this type of code in the headers. There are a few template classes that do memory management (see TBufferedTransports and TBinaryProtocol), so those probably can't be moved. We normally use LD_PRELOAD to replace malloc and friends. --David On 12/06/2010 01:52 PM, Anatoly Fayngelerin wrote: > Hi Everyone, > > I am running into some issues integrating thrift into an existing build > process. The source of the problem lies in the fact that thrift headers > inline a large portion of the code. Specifically, TPipedTransport calls > malloc, realloc and free in the header. This becomes a problem in existing > builds when custom memory allocation is instrumented using linker > redirection (ld --wrap) > > I would like to gauge the community reaction to a potential patch that would > move code that performs memory management into the ".cpp". I would also be > interested in hearing if there are any reasons other than potential > performance gains for keeping this type of code in the headers. > > Thanks, > Anatoly >
