Subject: Re: [boost] [afio] Formal review of Boost.AFIO
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-08-31 12:44:22
On 31 Aug 2015 at 16:43, Andreas SchÃ¤fer wrote:
> > Monad is pretty much zero relative overhead. Nobody is paying
> > anything here.
> Zero compared to slow file system operations. But your claim is that
> you provide a high performance, reusable Concurrency TS
> implementation. Compared to other operations a shared pointer may have
> measurable overhead.
I really wish you German HPC guys would stop cherry picking and
twisting my words to suit your incessant point scoring. I find it
disrespectful, petty and juvenile, and I am sure so do most people
here. So please stop it. If you do it again Andreas, you will see no
further replies from me to anything you say, same as Hartmut.
Let me repeat:
Boost.Outcome provides a fairly standards conforming Concurrency TS
implementation with excellent performance characteristics if you
accept the restrictions it requires, which are minor and not a
problem for AFIO's needs.
That has nothing to do with Boost.AFIO which uses a shared_ptr to
manage its handle object. I have benchmarked the addition of the
shared_ptr as adding around a 0.5% overhead to handle creation. The
increment and decrement overhead per operation was unmeasurable.
I have repeated myself enough times now I am done. Either accept the
fact you are making hay out of nothing for the sake of noise and move
on, or please be quiet. We're done on this point.
-- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk