On Wednesday January 25 2012 20:04:05 Joachim Berdal Haga wrote: > > I am pretty sure the shared_array object were added as a simple way of > > deciding ownership of the data. If the creation of the shared_array is > > costly we could use a ownership flag instead. > > Or maybe two different classes. The thing is, ownership of Array<> > data is not known: if it's created with the (uint,T*) constructor then > the contents will be deleted by whoever owns the T*, and it's not safe > to hold references to it. Or so it seems to me.
You can say that, but mixing C-api and Python we already have that situation several other places. The point is that when the (uint,T*) constructor is used Array<> should not take ownership of the data. We could also change the pointer to a shared_ptr and use a special function for the deleter, which calls delete [] instead of the default delete. That might be less expensive. But with Array<> I suggest we go with a flag type of memory management, as we need something that is fast. > But yes, it's fairly costly. You can always try changing the internal storage to just a T* and setting a flag for ownership, and check if there are any places where boost::shared_array<T> is used. Johan _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
