Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Signals deprecation and removal
From: Stefan Seefeld (stefan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-06-21 15:51:04

On 06/21/18 11:34, Zach Laine via Boost wrote:
> I'd like to point out that Boost.Signals2 is threadsafe, and you pay for
> that, to the tune of 2x slower performance than Boost.Signals. That is the
> figure reported during the Boost.Signals2 review. Does anyone know if this
> has changed? If not, removing Boost.Signals is a case of requiring some
> users to pay for what they do not use (the threadsafety bit). I never used
> signals/slots in any context in which I was signalling across thread
> boundaries, and I don't expect that to be a common use case.

Then that's a very good argument to parametrize Boost.Signals2 (in some
way; there are many projects that use tricks to add thread safety
without incurring performance overhead for the single threaded case) so
you don't pay for something you don't need. I don't think that this
should be an argument to keep an incompatible and deprecated API around.


      ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at