[boost] Re: new approach to smart ptrs -- no new()s is good news

From: Gavin Collings (gcollings_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-01-30 15:18:34

> >>                            Shared            Linked
> >> Initial Construction      2900 +/- 70       -30 +/- 50
> >> Copy Operation              62 +/- 13       119 +/-  9
> >> 
> 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.

OK, I have the test set up anyway, so if you can supply me with your
shared_in_ptr (to gcollings_at_[hidden], or here) I'll run the
above test on all four for comparison (shared, linked, shared_in and
cyclic).  Give me a couple of days though.  I only have access to
Visual C++ 6.0 SP 3 and gcc 2.95 on NT.

--
Gavin Collings
gcollings_at_[hidden]