Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Fiber review January 6-15
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-01-11 15:39:02
Le 11/01/14 19:50, Nat Goodspeed a écrit :
> On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba
> <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Why do Boost.Fiber need to use Boost.Coroutine instead of using directly
>> It seems to me that the implementation would be more efficient if it uses
>> Boost.Context directly as a fiber is not a coroutine, isn't it?
> Correct, a fiber is not a coroutine.
> Oliver is also bringing a proposal to the ISO C++ concurrency study
> group to introduce coroutines in the standard. Interestingly, he is
> not bringing a context-library proposal: the lowest-level standard API
> he is proposing is the coroutine API. But is the coroutine API
> low-level enough, and general enough, to serve as a foundation for
> higher-level abstractions such as fibers? You might regard the present
> fiber implementation as a proof-of-concept.
> Oliver asserts that using the Coroutine API rather than directly
> engaging the Context API has only trivial effect on performance.
I don't use to believe "sur parole" performance assertions.
The previous version of Boost.Fiber, IIRC, used Boost.Context. Maybe it
is worth comparing the performances :)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk