Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] c++03 library survey
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-08-28 20:07:12

On 8/28/18 10:21 AM, degski via Boost wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 at 19:06, Robert Ramey via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
>> Actually, I think the the impact of move semantics on performance of
>> well written existing code is minimal. On new code which uses more
>> types as values it's helpful.
> I don't think it has anything to do with whether the code is well written,
> copying a pointer f.e. is not the same as copying a whole array of data,
> because that could [should be] be the difference between move assignment
> and copy assignment.

right. One who is thinking about what he's doing is not going to copy a
whole array of data if he's using C++03. But since C++11 makes it
efficient, he may. So compiling C++03 code with a C++11 compiler isn't
going to make a difference.

> Of course if the library were written today, it would all the new stuff.
>> I don't think it would be faster (unless it were made header only) but
>> it would likely have have half the number of lines of code (or less).
> Header only is of no interest, whatsoever, in terms of performance, that's
> not how things work (inlining could be affected, but that's about it, I
> would say)

LOL - inlining IS the essential difference with a header only library.
It would eliminate one move in the serialization libary. And that would
double the speed. This is why a C++11 serialization library (cereal) is
twice as fast as boost serialization and other libraries.

>> But the years long slog to address corner cases, workarounds for
>> compiler bugs and standard library bugs, etc. And there would be design
>> changes which would also create a bunch of ripple effects. So it would
>> really end up as a whole re-write.
> Yes, it's a major job, hence all the resentment.

It's not just resentment - there's just no benefit to it.
> degski

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