Re: [boost] Is Boost interested in the Boost-based Base64 library

Subject: Re: [boost] Is Boost interested in the Boost-based Base64 library
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-06-16 19:13:12

Denis Shevchenko wrote:

> But:
> 1. I am C++ developer, not assembler developer. :-)
> 2. For some applications speed is not crucial factor. For example,
> now I write console application for documents signing by RSA keys.
> What's the big difference whether the license document is encoded/decoded 
> in
> 0.009 s or in 0.001 s?
> 3. Performance may be optimized in future.

This seems to suggest that the implemention currently in
boost is somehow suboptimal.  It's all inline code, and the
"parameters" (line length, etc) are all known at compile
time and it's a fairly straight forward algorithm.  I would
hope that modern compilers could compile this down
to an almost optimal implemenation.  Of course I have
no idea to what extent this is true and I would really
like to know.  So I would be curious as to the difference
in time and runtime size for the version generated by
templates and one written by hand.  In fact, here's
a great idea for a realistic and useful GSOC project:
"Comparison of different C++ compilers with
optimally written code"

Robert Ramey