Boost logo

Boost :

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


Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk