Re: [boost] Boost.MPI accepted

From: Felipe Magno de Almeida (felipe.m.almeida_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-22 21:30:42

On 9/22/06, David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> "Felipe Magno de Almeida" <felipe.m.almeida_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
> > On 9/22/06, David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >> [snipped]
> >
> >> Using Boost.Parameter is not the same sort of thing; it comes with
> >> Boost and is transparent to build/configuration issues.  I'm not
> >> saying what you're suggesting is a bad idea; I just don't see what
> >> great advantage it offers.
> >
> > Faster compile time?
> > Boost.Parameter uses a great deal of metaprogramming, and I used a
> > little here in a project of mine. It really makes the interface
> > better, but the compile times grow a lot.
>
> Really?  By how much?  and on what compiler?  I would very much
> appreciate seeing numbers.
>
> Are you using the latest Boost.Parameter macros to enable your
> functions, or are you making lots of use of the old idioms?
> Extensive use of binding<>, especially, is likely to make it expensive
> at compile-time.

Oh, there were changes? No, no, I dont think I was using any macros.
But I was using only named templated parameters. I really dont know
how it compares.

> > IMO, they are worth, but I doubt everybody would agree.
>
> Let's have some numbers; if they are very bad I'll be convinced (but
> also highly motivated to optimize the library).

I dont have hard data. But a three classes library, using only named
template parameters (four each) and instantiated three times was
taking roughly 30 seconds to compile. VC7.1 on a AMD 64 X2 3800+

>
> --
> Dave Abrahams
> Boost Consulting
> www.boost-consulting.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>

-- 
Felipe Magno de Almeida