From: Aaron W. LaFramboise (aaronrabiddog51_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-12-01 00:28:48
Jody Hagins wrote:
> I have not done much examination either, but to satisfy my curiosity, I
> hacked together a "lite" implementation of the signals interface that
> provides *minimum* functionality. Same interface as boost::signal<>,
> w.r.t. connect(), disconnect() and operator() (i.e, dispatching a
> signal). Also, allows connect/disconnect/replace inside a slot handler.
> It does not provide return value combining and the fancier features.
This is very useful information!
The primary observation I make from this is how much slower by ratio
Boost.Signals is. I'm going to look at your test 'lite' implementation
later. Is there some additional feature Boost.Signals is offering that
causes it to do all of this extra work?
> Note that there seems to be some heavy overhead just in calling
> signal(). The output files show several different size runs, on two
> different architectures/compiler versions.
It's also useful to know how much of a win it is to group as many calls
as possible into a single signal rather than separating them into
Aaron W. LaFramboise
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk