Re: [Boost-users] [signals2][review] The review of the signals2 library (formerly thread_safe_signals) begins today, Nov 1st

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [signals2][review] The review of the signals2 library (formerly thread_safe_signals) begins today, Nov 1st
From: Frank Mori Hess (fmhess_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-19 19:11:25

On Wednesday 19 November 2008 16:59, Hansi wrote:
> I have made a few tests with the library. I think the library is good,
> but I don't know if I make something wrong, but it seems for me that the
> library is slow. I have made a few tests with VC++ 8.0 and _SCL_SECURE=0
> and it seems that it is about 50 times slower than a normal
> boost::function with a bind.... It's a lot...

I distilled your benchmark down to something minimal I could compile under 
Linux (attached) and I get:

$ ./a.out
0.25 s

10000000
2.24 s

when compiling with gcc with -O3.  So, I'm getting a factor of 9.  The 
original Boost.Signals doesn't do any better in this particular benchmark.

One odd thing I noticed is the signals2 benchmark actually runs slower (2.8 
sec) if I define NDEBUG!