Subject: Re: [boost] [review] Review of PolyCollection starts today (May 3rd)
From: Thorsten Ottosen (tottosen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-05-15 14:13:18
Den 15-05-2017 kl. 00:14 skrev Joaquin M LÃ³pez MuÃ±oz via Boost:
> El 11/05/2017 a las 18:18, Thorsten Ottosen escribiÃ³:
> > Den 11-05-2017 kl. 09:53 skrev Joaquin M LÃ³pez MuÃ±oz via Boost:
> >> El 10/05/2017 a las 22:33, Thorsten Ottosen via Boost escribiÃ³:
> >>> D. Implementation of equality: do we need to be set like semantics
> Sorry, I'm not getting you. The current implementation enforces exact
> segment match.
> Could you maybe elaborate/reword your question?
My bad. Your code does what the docs say. You have this
// TODO: can we do better than two passes?
By that, do you mean that the first pass is the size() comparison?
> >>> E. should the test check (perhaps via static_assert) the conditions
> >>> under which move-construction and move-assignment is noexcept? (sorry
> > I don't get it. [...]
> My bad, I misread your question. Of course move construction and move
> assignment do not throw or copy elements etc., but I didn't mark them as
> noexcept following the no-noexcept signature of std unordered associative
> containers. I don't know why the std has not made those noexcept.
I guess some vendors wanted freedom, and then gave users the near
impossible task of tracking no-except/except impacts through their code
bases. Now, you use =default for all the move operations, so I think
they are required to be deduced to be noexcept exactly when they can be.
Though a static assertion in the tests can track any fault in that logic.
If one ever puts base_collection's into a container, you are in for a
huge penalty when the container operation falls back on copying.
> >>> S. The test are testing best possible scenario; a more realistic test
> >>> would be to copy pointers to an std::vector<base*>, shuffle it and run
> >>> update on that.
> >> Sorry if I am not getting your question, but is this not the line
> >> labeled "shuffled_ptr_vector"
> >> in the plot?
> > Yes, sort of, but I'm saying that very often one wants to copy
> > pointers from objects in base_collection into std::vector<base*> to
> > rearrange the elements somehow (say, your game entities need to be
> > sorted wrt to distance from the avatar). I still expects
> > base_collection + std::vector<base*> + shuffle to perform somewhat
> > better than ptr_vector + shuffle, but it would be interesting to see.
> Sorry again but I don't get it yet. I don't quite understand which
> data structure you'd like me to compare base_collection against.
So take the processing test. You already compare against a shuffled
ptr_vector<T>. So far so good. Now take a base_collection<T> as is also
done. Then take the address of every element in the base collection and
put them into a vector<T*>. Now shuffle this vector<T*>'s content like
you did for ptr_vector. Then compare the processing time over a
ptr_vector with the processing over the vector<T*>.
I claim this is a slightly more realistic test because one often wants
to impose an order of some or all of the elements in the
base_collection<T> before processing/iterating them somehow. So you
won't always access the items in the order induced by the
base_collection<T>. That's why I said that the current test is a
best-case scenario, and there is no need to change that test. But I
think it would be useful to see how much better your library is when
access is not segment-sequential even though storage is.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk