Alex Rousskov wrote:
> It will not lead to a coredump, but it will consume more CPU cycles
> than the caller wanted it to. Personally, I do not see any _benefit_
> of overloading the function with two semantically different actions.
> To me, it is no different than another "switch" wrapper.
Same here, but I am more leaning to only have the global "maintain all
pools" call, and skip the per-pool call. Having a maintenance function
like this per memory pool is not really needed.
-- HenrikReceived on Thu May 03 2001 - 14:35:22 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:13:58 MST