Re: [boost] Re: [signals] Performance

From: Douglas Gregor (doug.gregor_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-01 21:21:42

On Apr 1, 2005, at 7:22 PM, razeh wrote:

> Doug Gregor <dgregor_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>> On Mar 30, 2005, at 9:28 PM, Robert Zeh wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> After consulting with Doug Gregor I've done some more work on signals
>>> performance.  The patch I've attached removes the pImpl idiom in
>>> named_slot_map and iterator_facade.
>>>
>>> The signals regression tests still past.
>>
>> Excellent, thanks!
>>
>> Did you happen to note the size of the test executables before and
>> after, e.g. signal_test and/or signal_n_test? The original tradeoff in
>> Signals was trying to favor smaller over faster, so I'm wondering if
>> it was truly or a tradeoff or just bad design :)
>>
>> I'll take an in-depth look at the patch as soon as I find some time.
>>
>
> Here the sizes of my builds, built with -O3 and gcc 3.3.5 on my
> Debian Duron system.
>
>                     static (bytes)         dynamic (bytes)
> cvs build    :      115,734                65,222
> patched build:      108,465                58,623

Excellent! I'll do an in-depth review of your patch tomorrow. Thanks 
again!

        Doug