Re: [boost] [Review] Formal Review of Proposed Boost.Chrono Library Starts TOMORROW

Subject: Re: [boost] [Review] Formal Review of Proposed Boost.Chrono Library Starts TOMORROW
From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-11-08 12:32:04

Hi,

thanks for taking time on the review.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Roland Bock" <rbock_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 6:44 AM
Subject: Re: [boost] [Review] Formal Review of Proposed Boost.Chrono Library Starts TOMORROW

>> - 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.

I will add a more explicit use of thread_clock in the documentation and a concrete example.
 
> 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.

Oh, you are right. I will replace by
"thread_clock class provides access to the CPU-time spent by the calling thread."
 
>> - 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.

Glad to hear it.

>> - Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library?
>>    
> Yes, but the documentation should receive another update.

Many thanks. Please, could you point to other documentation improvements?

Best,
Vicente