Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost.Move] [Boost.Container] Compiling with older versions of Boost and Performance
From: Thomas Jordan (thomasjordan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-01-08 06:25:32
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2012 15:58:20 +0100
> From: "Vicente J. Botet Escriba" <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]>
> Le 07/01/12 12:10, Thomas Jordan a ?crit :
>> I am interested in experimenting with v1.48 Boost.Move and
>> Boost.Container. However, I am otherwise constrained to using Boost
>> libraries v1.33.1 with
>> a Sun C++ v5.10 compiler. I couldn't seem any 'Boost library
>> dependencies' listed in the Move/Container documentation, but a quick
>> look through the header files suggests
>> that it is mainly MPL and Type Traits. So...
>> First question: would it be feasible for me to combine the headers for
>> these two libraries with the v1.33.1 libraries and get it to work (albeit
>> maybe with a little customisation), or would it be a big job/non-starter?
>> Second question - I don't see any performance analysis published for
>> Boost.Move. I know that move semantics is about more than improved
>> performance, but am interested in that side of things, especially as the
>> above compiler appears suboptimal in terms of copy elision and RVO. I am
>> wondering for example whether are there any (compiler-specific) factors
>> which could mitigate against the performance benefits of doing a move vs
>> a copy of a vector, using these libraries, for example.
> unfortunately Boost.Move and Boost.Container are not working up to now
> on Sun c++ even on trunk (1.49). See
Thanks for pointing me to that. In general is there anything more detailed
than pass/fail available to look at?
Is the assumption that something with so many fails it not fixable one the
library side, and is not worth investigating?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk