From: Jeff Flinn (TriumphSprint2000_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-12 15:56:10
"Robert Ramey" <ramey_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>I did notice this article and took note of the claim.
> This is a very interesting topic to me and one that merits a "science
> project". I invested much effort in making sure code was generated at
> compile time whenever possible so I would be disappointed at such a
> My past experience in this area is that one really has to undertake a
> serious effort to gather this kind of data. I've been through before with
> my sort program (www.rrsd.com) and now believe that there is no short cut
> in this area. Anecdotal information is usually very misleading. I would
> guess there is likely a few areas where performance is getting bogged
> down. I might suspect the stl used in object tracking. However, in the
> past, whenever I really looked at these questions with a good statistical
> profiler, I've always found that bottle necks in places where I never
> would have suspected.
> So, this is an interesting area which needs a serious look.
I haven't read the article, but, IIRC there was discussion elsewhere
concerning the overhead involved in reconstructing the xxx_(i|o)archive for
similar message passing applications. Could this be the issue here as well?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk