Re: [PATCH] irange_pool class

[Andrew MacLeod <amacleod@redhat.com>]

On 9/18/20 1:03 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> On 9/18/20 6:42 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>> On 9/18/20 8:28 AM, David Malcolm wrote:I think of a "pool allocator" 
>> as something that makes a small
>>>>> number of
>>>>> large allocation under the covers, and then uses that to serve
>>>>> large
>>>>> numbers of fixed sized small allocations and deallocations with
>>>>> O(1)
>>>>> using a free list.
>>>> Ah, I didn't know pool had a different meaning.
>>> See e.g. gcc/alloc-pool.h
>>
>> The name originated when the original v1 version was based on using 
>> alloc-pool.h.  when we went to varying sizes, we switched to and 
>> obstack implementation  and never changed the name.
>>   <...>
>>
>>>>> I think it would be clearer to name this "irange_obstack", or
>>>>> somesuch.
>>>> I'd prefer something more generic.  We don't want to tie the name of
>>>> the
>>>> allocator to the underlying implementation.  What if we later change
>>>> to
>>>> malloc?  We'd have to change the name to irange_malloc.
>>>> irange_allocator?  Or is there something more generically appropriate
>>>> here?
>>> How about "irange_bump_allocator?"   Rather long, but it expresses the
>>
>>
>>
>> "irange_allocator" is sufficient .      The consumer should not care 
>> what the implementation is, and we may decide to implement it 
>> differently down the road. So I don't want to imply something 
>> specific in the name or we'd have to change it again.
>
> Updated patch attached.
>
> Aldy

This is OK btw,

Andrew