Subject: Re: [boost] [local] Help for the Alternatives section
From: Vicente BOTET (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-04-03 15:44:04
> Message du 03/04/11 19:49
> De : "Lorenzo Caminiti"
> A : boost_at_[hidden]
> Copie Ã :
> Objet : Re: [boost] [local] Help for the Alternatives section
> On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Lorenzo Caminiti wrote:
> > I have done an (hopefully more correct) benchmark of Boost.Local
> > performances compared with the alternative methods -- please check my
> > doing :)
> > In summary:
> > 1) Boost.Phoenix, global functors, and local functors run in ~15s.
> > 2) Boost.Lambda runs in ~40s.
> > 3) Boost.Local runs in ~53s.
> > 4) I don't have a C++0x lambda compiler so I could not benchmark C++0x lambdas.
With these timings it seems to me that you will be forced to provide two macro families: one that doesn't use the trick and can be used as template parameter only on compilers supporting this C++0x feature and the other which uses the trick is slow but can be used in a portable way as a template parameter.
I guess that this benchmark shows a hard limitation of Boost.Local at least until most of the compilers will accept local structures as template parameters.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk