From: BRIDGES Dick (Dick.Bridges_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-24 17:47:35
> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
> On Behalf Of Andreas Huber
> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 2:19 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] [statechart] Problems if I make dtorS virtual?
> Hi Dick
> BRIDGES Dick wrote:
> > When compiling the examples (statechart library downloaded from sf
> > Aug), I get the following warnings:
> [snip warnings]
> > I changed ~simple_State() and ~state_base() to virtual and the
> > warnings disappeared.
> > As a quick, not-definitive check, I built PingPong* with both the
> > virtual and non-virtual dtorS using gcc 3.4.2 on an old
> > i386-redhat-linux machine.
> I would expect the PingPong examples to deliver the least-dependable
> information regarding virtual vs. non-virtual dtors. This is due to
> fact that a lot of stuff is going on besides the destruction of
> I think BitMachine would make for a better testing platform...
> > The results appear to be the reverse of what I would expect, but I
> > checked
> > to verify that I have the correct result/config correspendence.
> > ..................non-virtual.....virtual
> > PingPongSingle.... 4.08 ..... 3.71
> > PingPongMulti1.... 6.01997 ..... 5.85999
> > PingPongMulti2.... 19.53 ..... 19.55
> Hmmm, here's what I get on a 3.2GHz Intel Pentium 4 Windows XP machine
> (all numbers in microseconds non-virtual / virtual):
> *** MSVC7.1 ***
> PingPongSingle: 1.06 / 1.07
> PingPongMulti1: 5.41 / 5.43
> PingPongMulti2: 12.34 / 12.26
> BitMachineCustom3: 0.18 / 0.19
Looks more like what I would expect.
BTW: Could I talk you into trading computers? ;)
> I.e. no significant difference non-virtual vs. virtual. Two things
> to mind:
> 1. At the point where states are destructed (see simple_state.hpp,
> 983) the compiler might know that the type of the pointer matches the
> runtime type of the referenced object and therefore call the virtual
> destructor non-virtually. However, I'm not sure whether such compiler
> magic is implemented in any of the tested platforms nor do I have a
> whether that's possible at all (it does sound pretty impossible)
> 2. There could be little difference on modern processors anyway (as
> have mentioned)
> > Reminds me of the old joke: "I see fine. I just don't understand
> > what
> > I'm looking at." Two questions: 1) will making the dtorS virtual
> > lead
> > to adverse consequences I simply haven't encountered yet;
> Given the numbers above I don't see any problems whatsoever. Not on
> tested processors, that is. I can't say whether the picture is the
> for processors used in the embedded world.
I may know the answer for some ARM machines soon - I hope. ;) I'll try
the BitMachine* tests if I can get the cross compilers to build them.
> > and 2) can
> > someone help me understand what I did wrong in setting up this test?
> Difficult to say. Could you build with bjam and repeat the test?
I followed the instructions to build the examples. Changed to the
example directory and ran <<bjam "sTOOLS=gcc">>. I got lazy and only
ran the PingPong* progs. Guess I should have mentioned that. %>]
Any chance that, in the absence of some future evidence to the contrary,
those dtorS can be made virtual in the library?
> Andreas Huber
"Multithreading is just one damn thing after, before, or simultaneous
with another." Scott Meyers and Andrei Alexandrescu
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk