Subject: Re: [boost] [MSM] Is there any interest in C++14 Boost.MSM-eUML like library which compiles up to 60x quicker whilst being a slightly faster too?
From: Kris (krzysztof_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-02-03 16:28:02
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Christophe Henry-2 [via Boost] <
> >I added a simple benchmark using Boost.MSM3-eUML2 to the performance
> >Results can be found here ->
> >It seems that Boost.MSM3-eUML2 (not sure what is the proper name?)
> >2.5 times slower than the eUML, but maybe there are some flags/options to
> >speed it up?
> >Moreover, I'm not sure how to disable the slowing down options such as
> >deffered events etc.?
> >I would assume it should be as fast as eUML as it using the same
> Compile-time is proportional to string length, reducing it would help.
> So would reducing BOOST_MPL_LIMIT_STRING_SIZE.
> As they are empty, you can also remove you action definitions.
Cheers, I have been experimenting with BOOST_MPL_LIMIT_STRING_SIZE already.
However, it would be a bit bias to remove actions/guards in order to speed
it up as it would not reflect the real life example. I know they are not
doing much in the example, but
they still have to be called or removed by the compiler depending on the
For example msm-lite is affected by empty guards/actions if it comes to
memory size as it stores them in order to call lambda expressions.
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
> To unsubscribe from [MSM] Is there any interest in C++14 Boost.MSM-eUML
> like library which compiles up to 60x quicker whilst being a slightly
> faster too?, click here
-- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/MSM-Is-there-any-interest-in-C-14-Boost-MSM-eUML-like-library-which-compiles-up-to-60x-quicker-whils-tp4683016p4683178.html Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk