Subject: Re: [boost] [convert] Performance
From: Vladimir Batov (Vladimir.Batov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-06-10 16:33:28
Alex, I was planning on replying by Rob bit me to it pretty much
expressing my view. My strong "attachment" to ref.-counted "Pimpl" is
probably stems from the fact that I've always treated it as
another/handier name for Handly/Body. Strangely, in all these years of
deploying my-pimpl no one (including Sutter) "corrected" me on that...
until now. :-(
On 06/10/2014 11:43 PM, alex wrote:
>> Then I run
>> for (int k = 0; k < num_tries; ++k)
>> double cnv_time = performance::str_to_int(strings,
>> double raw_time = performance_string_to_int_spirit(strings);
>> printf("str-to-int spirit: raw/cnv=%.2f/%.2f seconds (%.2f%%).\n",
>> raw_time, cnv_time, 100 * cnv_time / raw_time);
>> and regardless if I calculate cnv_time first or raw_time first I get the
>> same results (i.e. the first call does not help the second call at all) as
>> str-to-int spirit: raw/cnv=1.46/1.42 seconds (97.34%).
>> str-to-int spirit: raw/cnv=1.47/1.42 seconds (96.15%).
>> str-to-int spirit: raw/cnv=1.46/1.42 seconds (97.31%).
>> str-to-int spirit: raw/cnv=1.45/1.42 seconds (97.45%).
>> str-to-int spirit: raw/cnv=1.45/1.41 seconds (97.30%).
>> I give up. My brain is too puny to understand that.
> Where performance::str_to_int does
> BOOST_ASSERT(parse() ), and
> BOOST_ASSERT(i == str.end())
> performance_string_to_int_spirit does
> if !parse() return false.
> return i == str.end()
> Could it be that the assert function adds some overhead (passing the
> filename and linenumber), which explains the difference ?
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk