...due to the decision to use a much simpler allocation scheme
to increase probability for actual savings, after switching the API
and removing all trading related aspects, a lot of further code is obsoleted
Notably this raises the difficult question,
whether to ensure **invocation of destructors**.
Not invoking dtors ''breaks one of the most fundamental contracts''
of the C++ language — yet the infrastructure to invoke dtors in such
a heterogeneous cluster of allocations creates a hugely significant
overhead and is bound to poison the caches (objects to be deallocated
typically sit in cold memory pages).
What makes this decision especially daunting is the fact that the
low-level-Model can be expected to be one of the largest systemic
data structures (letting aside the media buffers).
I am leaning towards a compromise: turn down this decision
towards the user of the `AllocationCluster`
After some analysis, it became clear that the existing code for
`AllocationCluster` (while in itself valid) will likely miss the point
for the expected usage in the low-level Model: most segments of the
model will be rather small, and thus there is not enough potential for
amortisation when using such a per-type and per-segment scheme;
a rather simplistic linear allocator will be sufficient.
On the other hand, with the current C++ standard it is easy to provide
a complient allocator implementation for STL containers, and thus the
interface should be retro-fitted accordingly.
Looks like we'll actually retain and use this low-level solution
in cases where we just can not afford heap allocations but need
to keep polymorphic objects close to one another in memory.
Since single linked lists are filled by prepending, it is rather
common to need the reversed order of elements for traversal,
which can be achieved in linear time.
And while we're here, we can modernise the templated emplacement functions
previous versions used to resolve this ambiguity in favour of a ctor call,
but now the compiler treats such constructs as function definition;
this is reasonable, since C++11 introduced the notion of a "generalised
initialisation", which is always written as a (possibly empty) list
in braces.
In these specific cases here, we just omit the empty parens
right now we have to defeat an unfortunate static assertion in
the standard library, which is expected to go away in the future.
We use a hack to hijack the problematic definition with the preprocessor,
which requires our header to be first.
