Subject: Re: [boost] [xint] Third release is ready, requesting preliminary review
From: Chad Nelson (chad.thecomfychair_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-05-02 21:36:10
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 05/02/2010 07:20 PM, Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. wrote:
>> I've just posted the results of my testing. As to *why* it's that much
>> faster, I can only provide educated guesses.
> I think it is important to understand what the discrepancy is, because
> it may be that you're not writing your algorithms in a move-aware way,
> producing copies unnecessarily. This wouldn't surprise me if you wrote
> the original implementations with COW primarily in mind (which I can't
> blame you for).
I did, of course. But with the exception of operator+ and operator-, I
don't see anything that could benefit from additional move-specific
>>> So, bottom line: Give me a real example of an algorithm where COW
>>> gives superior performance to move semantics, and I'll buy into the
>>> COW implementation.
>> I'll give you one better: the actual timings, which you can reproduce
>> yourself if you doubt their accuracy. :-) Just let me know if you want
>> the code I used to come up with them... the rules I read say that I'm
>> not supposed to post any files to this list, so if you want them, I'll
>> need to upload the changes somewhere.
> I'll take a look at the performance testing code when I get a chance,
> but I'm guessing a problem *could* be that you're not maximizing the
> opportunities to moven from or otherwise modify temporaries.
It's possible. Show me a better way and I'll adopt it. I don't think the
operator+ and operator- are going to make a lot of difference to the
Oak Circle Software, Inc.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk