Re: [Boost-users] Re: [Signals] Observation about performance

From: Cory Nelson (phrosty_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-10 10:41:40

It might be a good idea to launch the benchmark in a seperate thread,
then call something like:

double GetThreadTime(HANDLE t) {
   __int64 c, e, k, u;
   GetThreadTimes(t, (FILETIME*)&c, (FILETIME*)&e, (FILETIME*)&k,
(FILETIME*)&u);

   return u/10000000.0; // user-mode time in seconds
}

to get a more precise time.

On 5/10/05, Keith MacDonald <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Doug,
> 
> Following up my previous message, I have run the tests with Boost 1.32.0 and
> can see what you mean about a drastic improvement.  The full set of figures
> are:
> 
> VC8.0 GOF Observer:   109
> VC8.0 Signals 1.33.0: 6203
> 
> VC7.1 GOF Observer:   78
> VC7.1 Signals 1.32.0: 112109
> 
> It's interesting that the Observer pattern is actually slower with VC 8.
> 
> - Keith MacDonald
> 
> "Doug Gregor" <dgregor_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> news:9d494fe2c9d82d8a37c8c9a18f1b553e_at_cs.indiana.edu...
> >
> > The performance of Signals has been drastically improved in 1.33.0 thanks
> > to a patch from Robert Zeh. It may still not be as quick as a specific
> > implementation of the Observer pattern, but it's much more reasonable now.
> >
> > Doug
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Boost-users mailing list
> Boost-users_at_[hidden]
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
> 

-- 
Cory Nelson
http://www.int64.org