Re: [boost] [function] function wrapping with noexceptionsafetyguarantee

Subject: Re: [boost] [function] function wrapping with noexceptionsafetyguarantee
From: Domagoj Saric (dsaritz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-23 15:00:46

"Daniel Walker" <daniel.j.walker_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:AANLkTikXL0i5Z+NoO2a3TiB8q2RmTk4oHJ1kzOyR-7vE_at_mail.gmail.com...
> Do you have any suggestion for how to quantify this? I've run some
> simple benchmarks, but in optimized object code the time overhead of
> boost::function is so small it's hard to measure.

Those benchmarks are obviously lacking...I've given you examples that show 
that the various overheads of the current implementation are quite 
measurable...

> The increase in size of the data segment is more straight forward, but
> don't we already know it will double? Instead of one vtable object per
> signature, there would be two per signature, right?

No, as explained in the previous post, the overhead is either zero, or one 
extra vtable per binary or one extra vtable per b.function signature...

--
"What Huxley teaches is that in the age of advanced technology, spiritual
devastation is more likely to come from an enemy with a smiling face than
from one whose countenance exudes suspicion and hate."
Neil Postman