Subject: Re: [boost] [metaparse] performance comparisons?
From: Abel Sinkovics (abel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-06-01 17:39:56
On 2015-06-01 18:06, Peter Dimov wrote:
> I cited Metaparse as an argument that char packs are quite obviously
> practical if they work in practice, and was asked whether measurement
> data has been presented as part of the formal review, perhaps compared
> to alternatives.
> I'm not aware of any alternatives to Metaparse though, so this
> question may be hard to answer. :-)
> Either way, the only performance data I see is
> which seems rather slim. Is there any other?
starting at slide 157: memory footprint + compilation time
slide 268 ("Compile-time parsing" is about Metaparse)
> (On an unrelated note, the cpp-next.com link is dead, but archive.org
> still has it at
Thank you for pointing this out. I've fixed the URL.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk