Re: [boost] Boost.MPI accepted

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-23 09:37:01

"Felipe Magno de Almeida" <felipe.m.almeida_at_[hidden]> writes:

> On 9/22/06, David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>> 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? 

Lots.

> 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+

That means nothing until we know how much of that time was due to the
use of the parameter library.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com