Subject: Re: [boost] Review request for variant2, review manager wanted
From: Mike (mike.dev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-02-27 09:29:19
> Gesendet: Montag, 25. Februar 2019 um 23:05 Uhr
> >> > https://github.com/pdimov/variant2/blob/develop/benchmark/benchmark1.md
> >> These are very interesting and useful, thank you. I now have hard
> >> evidence with which to persuade people at work that Boost.Variant
> >> needs to be purged from our latency critical paths.
> > Do read my follow-up message as well though. With
> > -DBOOST_VARIANT_VISITATION_UNROLLING_LIMIT=1, boost::variant performs
> > very well. (And even as-is, it also performs well with a more recent g++
> > (8 or 9) than my 7.4.)
> Oh you've already won a conditional acceptance vote from me no doubt. My
> sole condition for acceptance is (you guessed it) propagation of
> triviality of all special functions.
Maybe I nissunderstood your or Peter's mail, but I think the point was that the
original boost::variant (not v2) isn't as bad as the initial tests showed if you set
-DBOOST_VARIANT_VISITATION_UNROLLING_LIMIT=1. So the hard evidence isn't
quite as hard as it seemed.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk