Subject: Re: [boost] [log] Boost.Log formal review
From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-10 02:07:49
Andrey Semashev wrote:
> On 08.03.2010 21:22, strasser_at_[hidden] wrote:
>> my point was that for those use cases the logging sink must have access
>> to the attribute _values_ without expensive intermediate steps like
>> storing them in a dynamically allocated tree indexed by a string.
> Well, it's not that expensive as you may think. The view composition is
> a single memory allocation (not counting ones that may take place during
> attribute values acquisition) and no tree rebalancing or anything like
> that. There are also no memory allocations and copying for attribute names.
Do you have any performance measurements to back up the above statement,
and generally to give the idea of runtime performance, compiler performance
and code size implications of using Boost.Log?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk