Timeline for Fast pool allocator for games in C++
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Aug 7, 2021 at 7:57 | history | edited | Toby Speight | CC BY-SA 4.0 | Spelling, grammar, headings |
| S Aug 7, 2021 at 7:57 | history | suggested | Eric MSFT | CC BY-SA 4.0 | corrected spelling/grammar |
| Aug 7, 2021 at 1:11 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Aug 7, 2021 at 7:57 | |||||
| Feb 7, 2018 at 6:21 | comment | added | Peter Lenkefi | Thank you! Actually I forgot to test freeing, that was really stupid of me. Why shouldn't the move assignment free? I don't get that. I set the head into the other pool which should mean I don't point into the old memory. | |
| Feb 6, 2018 at 23:40 | comment | added | Loki Astari | @BenSteffan: Yes that's what I was trying to say. Updated answer. | |
| Feb 6, 2018 at 23:40 | history | edited | Loki Astari | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 29 characters in body |
| Feb 6, 2018 at 23:38 | comment | added | Ben Steffan | "They should be no-throw anyway good to let the language put that extra testing in for you." 1. I assume you mean noexcept, since nothrow is a facility used to request different behavior from operator new and doesn't make sense in the context of a move constructor. 2. Even if you add noexcept, this will not do any extra checking from the language side for you. The only thing that will happen is that exceptions get converted into calls to std::terminate (unless that is what you mean by testing). | |
| Feb 6, 2018 at 23:22 | history | answered | Loki Astari | CC BY-SA 3.0 |