Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!think.com!samsung!usc!ucsd!ucbvax!agate!eos!shelby!neon!pescadero.Stanford.EDU!philip
From: philip@pescadero.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Overloaded operator new VS. inheritance
Message-ID: <1991Jan10.224933.7518@Neon.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 10 Jan 91 22:49:33 GMT
References: <1991Jan10.195541.6003@usenet@scion.CS.ORST.EDU>
Sender: news@Neon.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System)
Reply-To: philip@pescadero.stanford.edu
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Lines: 19

In article <1991Jan10.195541.6003@usenet@scion.CS.ORST.EDU>, keffert@jacobs.cs.orst.edu (Thomas Keffer) writes:
|> I've been using overloaded new and delete operators
|> to implement a "small object pool" to speed the
|> allocation and deallocation of small objects from the heap.
|> I have been running into problems with inheritance and want to
|> propose a simple language extension to deal with the problem.
|> Here's an example:
[example deleted]
[why passing size to delete would be useful]
|> An easy solution to the problem would be to have Small::operator
|> delete pass the size of the object --- it's known at the point of
|> call, even for objects with virtual destructors.

ARM p 283: this feature is already available. You can either have operator
delete with one argument (void*) or two (void*, size_t).

-- 
Philip Machanick
philip@pescadero.stanford.edu