From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-22 12:41:35
That sounds fine to me.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vladimir Prus" <ghost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 1:10 PM
Subject: Re: [jamboost] class.jam performance issues
> Vladimir Prus wrote:
> > This is very slow! It essentially means that if I switch from using jam
> > list to using contaner.vector in one place, I'll have 100x slowdown.
> > Actually... it seems worse than that: each construction of class causes
> > call to BACKTRACE and that rule returns the list of all stack frames --
> > suspect a quadratic running time is possible.
> And regardless of way we use classes, quardratic running time seems
> idea to me. I've added a new optional parameter, 'levels' to the
> rule. Now class.jam calls it as [ BACKTRACE 1 ], so there's no more
> time. For my test case, this reduces the running time from
> 6.3/5.3 secons (real/user time) to 4/3.4
> Gonna commit the change soon.
> - Volodya
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Boost-Build 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