ChunkedList: store pointers to next/last elements instead of indices …

[michaelsippel]

…to save overhead of address calculation and allow more efficient packing of ItemAccess

• this also reintroduces the chunk-size as template parameter instead of storing it as member
• initialize AtomicList with chunk_capacity, not allocation size
• AtomicList: construct Item/ItemControlBlock from memory::Block
• ChunkedList: construct Chunk from memory::Block
• reorder ChunkedList::Item struct for more efficient alignment
• encode has_item of ItemAccess into one 8-byte pointer using bitmagic

[michaelsippel]

Here I'm still getting warnings which I dont understand

warning: 'short unsigned int __atomic_fetch_sub_2(volatile void*, short unsigned int, int)' writing 2 bytes into a region of size 0 overflows the destination [-Wstringop-overflow=]
  645 |       { return __atomic_fetch_sub(&_M_i, __i, int(__m)); }

[psychocoderHPC]

Here I'm still getting warnings which I dont understand

warning: 'short unsigned int __atomic_fetch_sub_2(volatile void*, short unsigned int, int)' writing 2 bytes into a region of size 0 overflows the destination [-Wstringop-overflow=]
  645 |       { return __atomic_fetch_sub(&_M_i, __i, int(__m)); }

Could it be a hint that some data are unaligned?

[psychocoderHPC]

@michaelsippel Is this PR a replacement for #45?

[michaelsippel]

Yes you are right, this PR does not include the fix for the double allocation / memory leak yet , #45 is still neccesary, either one needs to be rebased

[psychocoderHPC]

I opened a PR against your PR to solve the double free and alloc issue: https://github.com/michaelsippel/redGrapes/pull/1 My local tests works well, please have a look. As I wrote before it is not necessary that #45 get merged if this PR is solving the big issue with the double alloc and free.