Boost logo

Boost :

From: FlSt_at_[hidden]
Date: 2005-08-06 06:19:19

Rob Stewart wrote:

>From: FlSt_at_[hidden]
>>Furthermore I uploaded a new implementation of my junctions calss to the
>>sanbox file vault junction/ and a draft of a
>>document which describes the junctions from a mathematical view. (It's
>>just a draft and the notation needs to be explained)
>>Lambda is removed from the current version, because to many compilers
>>don't compile this. I'm using boost::bind instead to change the operands
>I just tried that version tonight. So far, it has taken well
>over 30 minutes to compile junction_example.cpp, and it's still
>going. That's on a 3 GHz dual Pentium box running SUSE linux
>using GCC 3.2.3. By comparison, my test program with my library
>takes less than a minute.
On my Pentium III 900Mhz (512 MB) (I know this machine is outdated like
my gcc 2.95) it takes 15Minutes with g++ 4.0.1 and the compilation
never finished with g++ 3.3.6 and 2.95.?, because my virtual memory was
full ;-). I uploaded a new version to the sandbox file vault
(junctions/ This version compiles a little bit
faster, but it's still slow. I don't know exactly why, but I think this
has todo with the many operator template instances are generated with my
test program. I removed the xxx_of functions for STL-Iterators, because
Ranges of STL-Iterators can be generated with make_iterator_range(
begin, end ).

>I'll try rewriting my test program to work with your library so
>we can compare them a little more fairly. I'll let you know what
>I find.
Good idea.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at