From: Beman Dawes (beman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-01-30 12:13:46
At 10:54 AM 1/30/00 -0500, Dave Abrahams wrote:
>on 1/30/00 10:46 AM, Gavin Collings at gcollings_at_[hidden]
>> Shared Linked
>> Initial Construction 2900 +/- 70 -30 +/- 50
>> Copy Operation 62 +/- 13 119 +/- 9
>> Then the figure 2900 / (119 - 62) = 50 (or worst case 22 at the
>> extremes of the error bands) gives the number of copy operations
>> before the increased copy time for linked pointer outweighs the
>> overhead of allocating the reference count on the heap.
>I really think it's time to trot out your new implementation which
>deque so we can test against that (I'm thinking the allocation cost
>much lower since the deque works like a pool allocator). If you need
>finishing it, please call on me.
I would like to see an invasive smart pointer included in the test
timings. (I have shared_in_ptr<> available if you need one.) My
guess is that many people who care deeply about performance will
prefer an invasive smart pointer as both fast and small.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk