Re: [boost] [thread_safe_signals][signals2] call for reviewers (review tentatively scheduled Nov 1st - Nov 10th)

Subject: Re: [boost] [thread_safe_signals][signals2] call for reviewers (review tentatively scheduled Nov 1st - Nov 10th)
From: Stjepan Rajko (stipe_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-10-14 12:51:06

Hi Jeff,

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 6:11 AM, Jeff Flinn
<TriumphSprint2000_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> It might be more expeditious to directly paste Frank's points from his email
> in the above thread. I've pasted them below. Is the intent to only review
> these changes?
>

Thanks for pasting that in.  I think any issue related to the library
would be appropriate to raise during the review, even if it would
apply to the current Boost.Signals library (reviews are good times to
figure things out :-)).  The original Boost.Signals review discussion
can be found here:
http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2002/02/index.php

I'm not sure how applicable that discussion would be now since I
imagine the library has evolved quite a bit over the years, but it
might be useful to revisit if we end up discussing things that apply
to Boost.Signals as well as the proposed library.

> Is there
> any info on the cost of this thread safe implementation vs. the signals1 in
> a single threaded application?
>

I assume that the following comparison was done for a single threaded
app (using dummy_mutex), but if not I suspect the results would be an
upper bound for the single threaded case:
http://www.nabble.com/boost%3A%3Asignal-poor-performance-td19602422.html#a19648195

Best,

Stjepan