Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [boostcon12]Trouble with tuples very compiler dependent
From: Eric Niebler (eric_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-11-19 13:11:26

On 11/19/2012 8:38 AM, Larry Evans wrote:
> On 11/19/12 10:19, Larry Evans wrote:
> [snip]
>> In contrast to the gcc4_8 compiler, with the clangxx compiler, the
>> relative qualitative performance, is just the opposite. IOW, the
>> bcon12_horizontal implementation is faster than the bcon12_vertical
>> implementation. In fact, the rate of change of the performance
>> difference accelerates as tree depth goes from 2 to 4. The rate of
>> change is so stark that it suggests, at least to me, there may be some
>> bug in clang. Of course that conclusion is based on almost no
>> knowledge, on my part, of the clang implementation.
>> The can be modified to filter out other parts
>> of the benchmark run output, which is here:
> For example, when the filter criteria restricts
> TUPLE_UNROLL_MAX to 10 (the same as TUPLE_SIZE),
> then, with compiler=clangxx, bcon12_vertical
> performs relatively better than bcon12_horizontal
> as TREE_DEPTH increases, as shown in the attached.

All the measured times are below one second. Benchmarks become more
meaningful when the thing being measured takes more than a few seconds
to finish. If you don't mind, can you step up the limits? Once we have a
few data points in the tens of seconds and minutes, we'll have a better
idea of how the different compilers are performing.

Thanks for doing these. It's very interesting.

Eric Niebler
BoostPro Computing

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at