Subject: Re: [boost] [Review] Formal Review of Proposed Boost.Chrono Library Starts TOMORROW
From: Roland Bock (rbock_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-11-08 00:44:52
On 11/05/2010 06:25 PM, Anthony Williams wrote:
> If you feel this is an interesting library, then please submit your
> review to the developer list (preferably), or to the review manager.
It certainly is an interesting library :-)
> Here are some questions you might want to answer in your review:
> - What is your evaluation of the design?
Looks good to me
> - What is your evaluation of the implementation?
Clean code, good to read.
> - What is your evaluation of the documentation?
I am still having some trouble with the documentation. For instance, one
of the coolest things about Chrono is the thread_clock, IMO. So I looked
for thread_clock in the documentation.
After being mentioned in the Description section, the next instance is
this section in the tutorial:
"How to get the actual CPU milliseconds (or other units?) used by the
current thread between
end and start?"
However, although thread_clock is mentioned in the text, it is not to be
found in any code sample. I know that it is easy to use it, but still, a
few lines of code proving it would certainly not hurt.
The next section mentioning the thread_clock is the reference section.
It contains this description:
"thread_clock class provides access to the real thread wall-clock, i.e.
the real CPU-time clock of the calling thread."
Huh? This is confusing at best, I'd say. I hope it measures the CPU-time
for the calling thread, but not the wall clock. The wall clock should be
the same for all threads.
> - What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?
Very useful! For me, the thread_clock is the most relevant part. It
allowed me to do rather simple but invaluable performance analysis in a
multithreaded pipeline application.
> - Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have any problems?
I used the previous version in a production scenario. No problems.
gcc-4.4.3, Ubuntu 10.4, 64bit
> - How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick
> - reading? In-depth study?
I concentrated on the thread_clock (who would have guessed :-) ). I've
been a user of this library for several months now, have contributed
patches to the code and given feedback to the documentation. I'd call it
a partial in-depth study ;-)
> - Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?
Partially, at least
> And finally, every review should answer this question:
> - Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library?
Yes, but the documentation should receive another update.