From: Andreas Huber (ahd6974-spamgroupstrap_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-07 07:55:20
David Abrahams <dave <at> boost-consulting.com> writes:
> "Andreas Huber" <ahd6974-spamgroupstrap <at> yahoo.com> writes:
> > I don't think so. Even with Aleksey's approach, with an FSM becoming
> > sufficiently large at some stage the compiler will give up because it
> > reached its template nesting depth limit or compilation becomes
> > infeasible because it takes too long (usually because the compiler eats
> > up so much memory that there's a lot of swapping).
> That could happen in any program that uses templates. Or uses a
> compiler, for that matter. I believe this to be FUD, and false for
> practical sizes of FSMs.
The BitMachine example shows that at least one current compiler (MSVC7.1)
fails to compile a flat state machine having between 32 and 64 states (at the
time when the library still worked on MSVC6.5, it failed with < 16 states).
Exactly where it fails I didn't test, moreover it is a rather arificial FSM
that noone would construct in practice. Unfortunately I don't have real-world
experience with machines that large but I do have feedback that such large
FSMs exist in practice (40 states). Moreover, I expect the problem to become
worse with the use of hierarchical/orthogonal states. For me this is enough
evidence that I cannot just ignore the issue.
Maybe Darryl has more information of this.
-- Andreas Huber When replying by private email, please remove the words spam and trap from the address shown in the header.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk