Re: [boost] [block_ptr] Request for a review manager

Subject: Re: [boost] [block_ptr] Request for a review manager
From: Phil Bouchard (philippeb8_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-02-16 19:06:49

On 02/15/2016 07:43 AM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> On 02/06/2016 04:05 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
>> On 02/06/2016 08:33 AM, Bjorn Reese wrote:
>>> On 02/04/2016 03:02 AM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
>>>
>>>> On the other hand I code completed the deterministic block_ptr in 2011
>>>> and I am wondering if there is anything I am missing to get it through
>>>> the review process because this is one of the most important subject in
>>>> computer science:
>>>> https://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/block_ptr/libs/smart_ptr/doc/index.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do you have any performance measurements comparing block_ptr<T> with
>>> shared_ptr<T>?
>>
>> We did some performance comparisons back in 2011 but I think block_ptr
>> was using the worse case scenario here:
>> http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2011/05/182012.php
>
> If I try out the latest modifications and I disable the threads then on
> Linux I have:
>
> make:
> auto_ptr:                    2458626 ns
> shared_ptr:                  2685224 ns
> block_ptr:                  28300624 ns
>
> new:
> auto_ptr:                    2383605 ns
> shared_ptr:                  4992185 ns
> block_ptr:                   7979659 ns

So I just added a specialization of the pool for GCC x86 and now 
block_ptr<> speeds up by 20%:

make:
auto_ptr:                    2511658 ns
shared_ptr:                  2695469 ns
block_ptr:                  22547960 ns

new:
auto_ptr:                    2369312 ns
shared_ptr:                  4991352 ns
block_ptr:                   6443925 ns

Thanks,
-Phil