Re: [boost] Should Boost adopt pimpl/d-pointer as much as it can?

Subject: Re: [boost] Should Boost adopt pimpl/d-pointer as much as it can?
From: Josh Faust (jfaust_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-23 17:10:43

>
> Did you try precompiling header files?
>

I didn't -- I've only ever used pch with msvc so I didn't think to try it.

>
> My results are:
>
> inclusion 2,6 s (-02+link)
> precompilation 1,45 s (-02+link)
> diff *1.8*
>

1.45 seconds is still a large amount of time to add for inclusion of a
single mutex header.

As a concrete example, including mutex.hpp pulls in 50 date_time headers
even if I'm not going to use timed_mutex.  If timed_mutex were implemented
in a cpp file, system_time could be forward-declared.  The locks also don't
look like they need the definition of system_time.

I'll have to do some experimentation with this stuff and submit a patch if I
can get compile times down.  I don't want to derail this thread into
something Boost.Thread-specific.

Josh