Re: Boost.Threads draft library submission

From: williamkempf_at_[hidden]
Date: 2001-03-15 13:21:10

--- In boost_at_y..., Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_a...> wrote:
> At 12:12 PM 3/15/2001, Dan Nuffer wrote:
> 
>  >...  Now if the Xerces
>  >library had written those two functions in the header files, they
>  >would've been inlined and the app would've gained at least 15% 
speed
>  >improvement.  The extra layers effectively doubled the time spent
>  >locking/unlocking mutexes.
>  >I can understand your not wanting to include windows.h in the 
header
>  >file, but I think you're overstating the negative impact.  If 
you're
>  >writing a program to run on windows, odds are you've already 
included
>  >windows.h and then there's pre-compiled headers with MSVC.  For 
pthreads
>  >platforms, including pthreads.h is trivial.
>  >Maybe you could take the approach of using a .ipp file, where if 
the
>  >user wants a minimal header they just include the .hpp, but if 
they want
>  >speed, to have things inlined they include the .hpp and 
the .ipp.  Thus
>  >the user has the option to choose.
> 
> There may come a time when 15% difference is a big number.  But 
right now 
> we need to focus first on the interface issues and functionality.  
Is this 
> an  interface we feel comfortable with?  Ditto functionality.  Have 
known 
> safety issues been addressed? Then there are issues of correct 
> implementation.
> 
> Eventually, after all those hurdles are passed, we can bother the 
> developers about 15% performance gains.  But for now let's try to 
keep 
> focused on the larger questions.
> 
> Just my opinion, of course, and not meant to be critical of Dan's 
comments.

Good point on top of those I tried to make myself.  Considering this 
point, debate about the implementation detail of the pimpl idiom will 
no longer be considered by myself at this time.  It's easily enough 
addressed later if found to be important.  Let's focus on the design 
and the implementation bugs.

Bill Kempf