Subject: Re: [boost] [next gen future-promise] What to call the monadic return type?
From: Avi Kivity (avi_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-26 13:35:12
On 05/26/2015 08:24 PM, Hartmut Kaiser wrote:
>> I'm assuming that the code Niall posted isn't literally written like
>> that but is instead produced after inlining such generic method calls
>> for a particular test case.
> I doubt any speedup based on all of this fancy-pants optimizations would be
> even measurable in the context of file system operations. I'm still highly
> doubtful of all of this.
> As said, give me a real world use case with real world measurements showing
> at least some speedup over 'conventional' futures. Otherwise all of this is
> an empty exercise.
It can be important for O_DIRECT AIO operations. I agree that for
buffered I/O, the filesystem overhead will dominate (and, on Linux, you
don't have a way to implement futures over buffered I/O without
resorting to threads, which will slow things down further).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk