Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Signals deprecation and removal
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-06-21 16:22:52
On 06/21/18 18:51, Stefan Seefeld via Boost wrote:
> 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.
There is a template parameter of mutex type in the `signal` template.
You will still have to pay for `shared_ptr`, though.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk