Subject: Re: [boost] [explore] Library Proposal: Container Streaming
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-12-01 14:06:06
David Bergman wrote:
> On Dec 1, 2009, at 1:21 PM, Jeremy Pack wrote:
> So, we have two issues:
> 1. Compilation time. Have you a guesstimate as to much time is spent
> on parsing, compiling and linking (see #2 below) Boost.Serialization
> for a case with N simple container outputs?
FYI - I ran the indicated test.
Time to make changes in code - about a minute
Time to compile link and run - undetectable.
This might be in part due the the fact that I use boost serialization
dll so it already has most of the code pre-compiled.
Oh - and BTW it compiled, linked and ran the first time
> 2. The extra size on executables (or libraries) given the linked-in;
> to give you some insight into this, when compiling the examples
> provided in this thread, the code size increased by 28k when linking
> the (MT version) of Boost.Serialization with the executable.
> I still believe it is a false notion that Boost.Serialization would
> add that much more than any non-trivial proposal in terms of
> compilation time or size of output.
Again, I think the boost serialization library - and boost in general -
- and templated code in general - gets a bad wrap for being "heavy weight".
With a little bit of thoughtful design and usage - I never have this
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk