Re: [boost] Re: Boost Profiler Proposal

From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-10 17:41:10

From: christopher diggins <cdiggins_at_[hidden]>
> From: "Rob Stewart" <stewart_at_[hidden]>
> >>
> > A better scheme would be to provide a null profiler class that
> > BOOST_PROFILE_START instantiates when BOOST_PROFILE_OFF is
> > defined.  Then, there can be empty, inline member functions so
> > that the following code compiles away to nothing in optimized
> > builds:
> >
> > void f()
> > {
> >   BOOST_PROFILER(type) prof;
> >   // code to profile
> >   prof.pause();
> >   // code to ignore
> >   prof.continue();
> >   // more code to profile
> > }
> 
> I like this. What if we took it a step further and wrote something like:
> 
> template<typename T1, typename T2>
> struct profiler : if_<profiling_on, basic_profiler<T1, T2>, 
> null_profiler>::type { };
> 
> This would entirely remove the need for macros. What do you think?

Yes, that's good.  You'd still probably want to use a macro to
enable/disable profiling so that it can be managed from the
compiler command line.  Thus, if the macro is defined,
profiling_on is defined appropriately to select basic_profiler.

The only question is how well that optimizes to nothing in
various compilers.

-- 
Rob Stewart                           stewart_at_[hidden]
Software Engineer                     http://www.sig.com
Susquehanna International Group, LLP  using std::disclaimer;