From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-11 11:49:28
Doug Gregor wrote:
> On Feb 11, 2005, at 9:51 AM, Peter Dimov wrote:
>> Douglas Gregor wrote:
>>> Background: Signals performance is sub-par, and much of the problem
>>> can be traced back to support for named slot groups. I'm trying to
>>> determine the best way to proceed.
>> Are you sure that this is the case?
> There may be other issues, but going from a std::list to a std::map
> (as needed to efficiently support connection of named slots) hurts
> iteration performance and increases executable code size. To counter
> the latter problem, I've done some type erasure that slows it down
> further and causes some of the extra heap allocations :(
You mean disconnection of named slots, right? List connection is O(1), map -
O(log N). You get ordering for free with a map, sure, but this is a separate
Anyway, I'm sure that few people would miss named slots. Lets' drop them.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk