From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-17 09:42:32
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hamish Mackenzie" <hamish_at_[hidden]>
> On Wed, 2002-04-17 at 13:22, David Abrahams wrote:
> > After some considerable thought, what you're saying makes sense to
> > However, a question:
> > Are you insisting on the use of iterators in an optimized count_if
> > reasons of generality? Of course it's always hard to tell what's
> > to make any given compiler's template engine happy, but this seems a
> > like anti-optimization to me. What Hamish thinks he discovered was
> > GCC is really efficient at operating on simple type lists. Why
> > we want to capitalize on that? At least, it seems worth testing both
> > approaches to see how they compare. I'd only be willing to pay a
> > price for generality of the optimized version.
> Yeah its looking good. Here is an implementation of size that gcc
> compiles in 14.7 seconds for N=400. The generic mpl version takes 13.8
> seconds for N=10.
Have you tried comparing this with the optimization Aleksey proposed?
> I am not suggesting we shouldn't optimise the generic/portable version
> as well, but a 40:1 speed improvement might be hard to beat.
Hard to know without trying, eh?
> I would be interested to know what the results are for como (I have a
> copy of the beta version somewhere, but I haven't got around to
Me neither. However, I have a bunch of Intel compilers which display
typical template instantiation performance for all but the most recent
EDG front-ends. Further, though, I don't think it's really worth testing
until the MPL version has loop unrolling in it again.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk