Re: [Boost-users] [Signals] Another performance discussion

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [Signals] Another performance discussion
From: Sajjan Kalle (sairony_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-07-23 10:15:08

2009/7/23 Frank Mori Hess frank.hess_at_[hidden]
>
>
> Your reply quoting in the plain text versions of your emails is completely
> broken.  Please turn off whatever option in gmail that causes that.
>
I think it should be fixed now.
>
>
> That's a bit too old to be interesting.
>
> > Found a more recent
> > http://archives.free.net.ph/message/20080916.195431.40753f57.fr.html .
>
> That's looks like a "I didn't know I had to set _SECURE_SCL to zero for good
> performance" problem to me.
>
Yeah, upon further inspection that sample isn't really all that interesting.

> > I used the following:
>
> > Altus::Timer tim;
>
> Please provide a benchmark that will compile with just boost.

I'm upgrading to 1.39 from 1.38, I'll create a new sample without the
alien timer.

Profiling the project in question where the performance of
boost::signals is one of the problems it seems two of the bottlenecks
is slot_call_iterator::increment and slot_call_iterator::equal, and in
those in particular find_if, which seems to be used for incrementing
the iterator. I'll try to create a sample with timing on a bit more
fragmented world like use case.