From: brass goowy (brass_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-06-19 01:10:40
Robert Ramey writes:
>brass goowy wrote:
>> I have a bit of a beef with the efficient part at least in places --
>> Preliminary results on Boost 1.35 and MSVC9 show only minor
>> differences from the 1.34.1 and MSVC8
>I did take a cursory look at above page which show a
>performance difference in two simple examples. There
>are a couple of problems with these small tests.
>The serialization library defaults for versioning and object
>tracking are used.
The tests have lines like
Are you saying that removing that line could improve the
performance results of B.Serialization?
>Versioning provides the facitly for remaining
>backward compatibility with older archives. Tracking is used
>to permit reloading of pointers and to elmininate redudency
>in archives. Both of these features have a cost. Looking
>at the "ebenezer" code it doesn't look like these thinngs
>are supported. So I'm skeptical of the utility of this
>particula comparison. It might a little more useful to
>experiment with the boost serialization traits to turn
>off features for these types so that timings might be
I didn't know there is a way to disable your versioning
stuff. How do you do it for a list<int>? We have a
different approach to version support than you do. I've
gone into some detail on the differences between our
approaches on various C++ related newsgroups in the past.
> But still I think, that such a limited
> set of tests can provide only limited insight.
Yes, someone else on the list said something similar
previously. Since he said that we've started running
the tests on Windows as well as Linux. I hope to add
to the tests in the future.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk