Subject: Re: [boost] [parallel_sort] Proposal
From: Scott McMurray (me22.ca+boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-02-02 14:17:45
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 14:02, Edouard A. <edouard_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I haven't benchmarked against a runtime option, I did a template parameter
> as it felt more natural to me to make this a compile time parameter rather
> than a runtime parameter.
It seems fundamentally runtime to me, since different machines or just
different runs will want different levels of concurrency. The
overhead ought to just be a few compares and arithmetic operations,
which would be swamped by the effort involved in the sorting.
I think normally I'd want to just use
parallel_sort(b, e, thread::hardware_concurrency())
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk