From: Fernando Cacciola (fcacciola_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-26 11:02:32
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 12:58 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Signals Library Review
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steven Kirk" <steven.kirk_at_[hidden]>
> > > Ouch! I just checked the size of boost::signal<void> on the compilers
> > have
> > > easy access to, and here are the results:
> > >
> > > Borland C++ 5.5.1/Windows 2000: 80
> > > MSVC 6.0sp5/Windows 2000: 28
> > > GCC 2.95.3/Linux 2.4.x: 24
> > > GCC 3.0.3/Linux 2.4.x: 16
> > > Comeau 18.104.22.168/Linux 2.4.x: 20
> > >
> > Oh now those sizes sound far more reasonable! In that case consider my
> > objections dropped. I'm still not sure how you're getting 80 bytes on
> > though. On a default Jam build, which I notice doesn't switch on the
> > base class optimisation or empty member optimisation, I get 136.
> > these optimisations, I get 120. Still quite some way behind GCC3.0.3
> Please post a patch for the toolset which enables these by default.
> no reason for them to be disabled unless they cause bugs.
Unfortunately, they do cause spurious bugs, mostly ICEs. I have them turned
off by default.
I think we better leave them off by now...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk