Re: [boost] Re: Re: Thread lib (good reason for static)

From: Peter Danford (pdanford_qed_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-06-02 22:33:13

I have already tried using the profiler mentioned below. It is a very slick thing. But it was not that useful on a complete run (that normally takes 20 hours or so) because the instrumented version takes orders of magnitude longer to run. In fact, after about an hour of running the instrumented version, the run was not even past the preliminary initialization stage :(.
 
That being said, I think there is surely a lot of room for more clever and faster code, but it simply is computationally intensive by nature....
 
Peter

Johan Nilsson <johan.nilsson_at_[hidden]> wrote:
Hi,

"Peter Danford" 
wrote in message
news:20040602024428.45768.qmail_at_web60606.mail.yahoo.com...
> I'm not sure other than the reasons regarding optimizations possible with
statically linked libs. I know that there is also some overhead involved in
calling dll functions as opposed to the static counterpart, but this surely
is a small cost. Other than that, I am not sure.

As you are running VS.NET 2003, you could try the (free) community edition
of Compuware's profiler, downloadable from:
http://www.compuware.com/products/devpartner/profiler/default.asp

Instrumenting your application (and boost.thread) should help you to find
out the reason for the performance degradation when using the runtime linked
version.

                
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger