Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [log] Review attempt
From: Roland Bock (rbock_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-11 03:28:05

OvermindDL1 wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Roland Bock <rbock_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Andrey Semashev wrote:
>>> On 03/09/2010 10:48 PM, Michael Caisse wrote:
>>>> Andrey Semashev wrote:
>>>>> These parsers do, indeed, give a hard time to compilers. I tried to
>>>>> reduce the footprint but apparently some compilers still barely cope
>>>>> with them. Not sure what can be done, but I'll try to experiment some
>>>>> more. Suggestions from Boost.Spirit gurus are welcome. :)
>>>> Would you be willing to move to Spirit 2.1 and away from classic? I
>>>> could offer a patch once my work load frees up some.
>>> If it does offer better compile times, I'm willing to try. I just haven't
>>> had any real experience with Spirit 2.x before. The patch would be much
>>> appreciated. :)
>> There's a page with migration hints:
>> I assume that the Spirit experts will be able to re-write that code with
>> ease.
> Why yes, yes we can. :)
> I did not know you were using a rather ancient version, I would have
> rewritten that already if I knew you were using Spirit at all. I have
> not been paying too much attention to all this review process, so if
> you can give me the SVN link to the latest version, I can rewrite the
> Spirit code to use the *much* faster Spirit2.1, it will both compile
> and execute faster, and I can submit a patch. I am craving doing some
> programming. Been *so* busy with stuff recently that I have not been
> able to do much, other then moving in to my new place I actually have
> some free time again so I can do this.

Regarding the use of Spirit within Boost.Log: If I get it right,
spirit::karma supposed to be extremely fast in serializing. In another
thread I read that one of the performance issues is the serialization of
DateTime (

Would it make sense to use karma here to speed things up?



Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at