Re: [Boost-users] large variant performance compared (50 elements)

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] large variant performance compared (50 elements)
From: Larry Evans (cppljevans_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-29 12:54:01

On 01/27/11 19:32, Larry Evans wrote:
> On 01/27/11 13:19, Paul wrote:
>> Hopefully attached header will pass your test?
>> Since i heave no gcc or python environment currently available it will
>> be more difficult for me to test this. I'm curious whether you find the
>> same improvement between '''our''' variant compared to the
>> boost::variant as we have seen on our project.
>> Paul
> 
> Paul, it still does not compile with gcc.
> My code attached to earlier post forward declared:
> 
>     template<typename Typelist2>
>     CLoPtrVariant(const CLoPtrVariant<Typelist2>& rOperand)
>     ;
[snip]
In private emails, I and Paul resolved the issue and the code
with a comparison of 3 variant implementations of visitation
has been uploaded to:

  variants_compare.zip

in:

http://www.boostpro.com/vault/index.php?&direction=0&order=&directory=Data%20Structures

The zip also has a compare of just simple assignment.

In all cases, CloPtrVariant is the clear winner.
Unfortunately, OneOfMaybe suffers pretty badly in
the visitation compare :(

-Larry