Boost logo

Boost :

From: williamkempf_at_[hidden]
Date: 2001-03-27 09:50:45

--- In boost_at_y..., Jens Maurer <Jens.Maurer_at_g...> wrote:
> williamkempf_at_h... wrote:
> > [Jens Maurer wrote:]
> [ Interfaces vs. performance]
> > Unless you think the interface prevents creating
> > efficient implementations
> So I believe.

I've been thinking about this a bit. With an increase in size (some
people dislike this as well, but some tradeoffs have to be made) I
could get the pthread implementation to run as fast (or close to,
basically as fast as the current fast_mutex) as standard pthreads
mutexes. This helps to illustrate why I think the interface doesn't
really prevent creating efficient implementations. Only if an
interface truly makes writing a portable implementation prohibitive
should we consider the interface to be in need of redesign (well,
from an implementation stand point, not from a usability/safety/etc.
stand point).

If you're interested in the faster implementation I have in mind I
can go into depth on it in private. I could implement it as well,
but it requires the error checked and recursive mutex types that are
a new edition (or a soon to be addition?) of the pthreads standard
and my version of pthreads (pthreads-win32) doesn't support them. So
I'll need detailed documentation on the new standard and someone
willing to compile and test what I code.

Bill Kempf

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at