Hello Bjorn,

I just wanted to make clear that I know that this c style thing uses memcpy. I would like to use the boost serialization to have its advantages compared to the c style thing. In fact I set up this test to see what runtime costs are there compared to c memcpy. I use boost serialization a lot, but to now not on a time critical path.

In my source I use for the streams boost iostream array_source/sink to serialization into/from a vector of chars (my packet typedef).

Could you please elaborate what is different in your archive?

Thanks!

Am 21. September 2016 23:31:09 MESZ, schrieb Bjorn Reese <breese@mail1.stofanet.dk>:
On 09/21/2016 08:35 PM, Georg Gast wrote:
 Am 21.09.2016 um 19:36 schrieb Bjorn Reese:

 The Boost archives use iostreams, whereas cstyle uses memcpy.

 Yes, thats clear. :)

I am not sure how to interpret your response. My statement was not a
casual observation about your tests, but the main explanation for the
difference in performance.

That is one of the reasons why my own archives, unlike the ones
that are part of Boost.Serialization, are constructed to serialize
directly to/from other container types such as
arrays, std::string,
and std::vector.


Boost-users mailing list
Boost-users@lists.boost.org
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users