From: Andreas Huber (ahd6974-spamgroupstrap_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-25 11:14:05
BRIDGES Dick wrote:
>> PingPongSingle: 1.06 / 1.07
>> PingPongMulti1: 5.41 / 5.43
>> PingPongMulti2: 12.34 / 12.26
>> BitMachineCustom3: 0.18 / 0.19
> Looks more like what I would expect.
> BTW: Could I talk you into trading computers? ;)
>> Given the numbers above I don't see any problems whatsoever. Not on
>> tested processors, that is. I can't say whether the picture is the
>> for processors used in the embedded world.
> I may know the answer for some ARM machines soon - I hope. ;) I'll
> the BitMachine* tests if I can get the cross compilers to build them.
I would be very interested in the numbers.
>>> and 2) can
>>> someone help me understand what I did wrong in setting up this test?
>> Difficult to say. Could you build with bjam and repeat the test?
> I followed the instructions to build the examples. Changed to the
> example directory and ran <<bjam "sTOOLS=gcc">>. I got lazy and only
> ran the PingPong* progs. Guess I should have mentioned that. %>]
Oh, sorry. The fact that you saw the warnings led me to believe that the
examples weren't built with bjam.
> Any chance that, in the absence of some future evidence to the
> contrary, those dtorS can be made virtual in the library?
I'm at least reluctant to do that. Given the abundance of platforms that
support C++ we can never be sure that there is not one where performance
will suffer significantly when the dtors are made virtual. From the 3
compilers I use GCC is the only one that a) has such a non-virtual dtor
warning *and* b) doesn't have a pragma to turn off warnings. Hopefully,
the latter will soon be taken care of...
-- Andreas Huber When replying by private email, please remove the words spam and trap from the address shown in the header.
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