Re: [Boost-users] large variant performance compared (50 elements)

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] large variant performance compared (50 elements)
From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-12 00:21:36

AMDG

On 1/11/2011 1:27 PM, Paul wrote:
> Op 11-1-2011 21:48, Paul schreef:
>> I got it to work! Had to make some change to the jamfiles however to get
>> it going on my workarea (non sandbox).
>>

I can try to improve this.  I know that it
needs a Jamroot and there needs to be a
use-project boost : path/to/boost ;
somewhere.  Is there anything else?

>> I:\fcm3prod\BuildSet\repository\Boost\boost\boost/variant/variant.hpp(908) 
>>
>> (48)
>> b.cpp(25) (48)
>> Children:
>>
>> I:\fcm3prod\BuildSet\repository\Boost\boost\boost/detail/reference_content.hpp(115) 
>>
>> (336/50)
>>
>
> More specifically what does (336/50) mean here?

I don't think it really means anything.  I've had
a lot of trouble with the call graph, and I've
never managed to get the numbers to come out
to something meaningful.

>> I:\fcm3prod\BuildSet\repository\Boost\boost\boost/detail/reference_content.hpp(85) 
>>
>> (336/50)
>> I:\fcm3prod\BuildSet\repository\Boost\boost\boost/mpl
>
> Question: What should be an acceptable number of cum-instantiations 
> for a cpp file?

I don't advise using this metric to determine what's
acceptable.  If it compiles in a reasonable amount
of time using a reasonable amount of resources,
then it's acceptable--reasonable being defined by
what your willing to pay.  The number of template
instantiations doesn't translate directly into compiler
resource usage.

The tool is more designed to help you figure
out what to look at, given that you already
want to improve compilation time.

> Of course i could break it down into several cpp's (however needing 
> explicit instantiations since inclusion-model cannot be used in such 
> case). I'm having doubts whether its wise to do so!?

In Christ,
Steven Watanabe