Re: [boost] Boost.Convert. Take 2.

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Convert. Take 2.
From: Vladimir Batov (vb.mail.247_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-02-22 02:19:40

Rob Stewart <robertstewart <at> comcast.net> writes:
> On February 21, 2014 5:04:13 PM EST, Vladimir Batov <vb.mail.247 <at>
gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Still what I am puzzled by is that lexical_cast performance table in
> >the docs claims to be far ahead of scanf... and I cannot reproduce 
> >their numbers. 
> 
> Perhaps that's because you're using newer hardware or libraries than they
> used for their tests. 

Nuh, my home laptop about 10 years old. Trying the code with Microsoft
Visual C++ 2010 Express and gcc 4.8.2. Will try again on my Linux
power-house on Monday.

For fun I quickly hacked together a scanf-based converter and plugged it
into the "convert" framework. The optimized build is as efficient or close
to the raw scanf()... Only safe... And beats lexical_cast in my tests...