Subject: Re: [boost] [thread] performance of thread-local storage implementation
From: Edouard A. (edouard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-11 14:24:48
> My interpretation of the results is, that using thread-local storage is
> quite expensive. This was somehow expected. But what's surprising is,
> that the boost lib introduces an other penalty of factor 5.5.
Have you run this benchmark in Windows? I would be very much interested in
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk