Re: [boost] [boost::endian] Request for comments/interest

Subject: Re: [boost] [boost::endian] Request for comments/interest
From: Tomas Puverle (tomas.puverle_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-06-03 09:53:38

>

First of all, *thank you* for going into all this trouble and writing the 
code.

However, ...

> I have some problems with your tests.

I was going to make the same points as Robert, but he beat me to it.
Additionally (I don't think this was mentioned), I don't think the 
verification should be part of the test, either.

> > When the disk-data-file was in little endian, both approaches
> > came in at around 6 seconds.

This, I think, you'll find is the overhead of reading the file & 
verification.  In the little endian data case, swap_in_place<>() does 
nothing! :)

> > Swap Based: 18 seconds
> > Type Based   14 seconds

This is unexpected...

> > When the disk-data-file was in in little endian format both
> > programs took about 9 seconds.

But this is as I'd expect - copying should take the same amount of time for 
both.

Thanks again.  If there is a performance discrepancy between swap (soon to be
endian_cast<>) and the object-based approach, I will make sure to fix it, 
of course.

Tom