Boost logo

Boost Users :

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [Signals2] Signal memory overhead
From: Norbert Wenzel (norbert.wenzel.lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-21 04:39:42

On 20.03.2012 19:20, Sean Buckheister wrote:
>> Do you mean that it's possible to lower signals memory consumption in
>> a general use-case as well?
> I don't know. I haven't looked into the implementation of Signals2 yet,
> but at least for applications that require only singlethreaded connect,
> disconnect, and dispatch the overhead can be lowered somewhat. Always
> provided that I haven't made any big mistakes.

I'm not sure, but I always thought signals1 was without any
synchronization and signals2 was added especially because of the
synchronization it does.

So if that is the case, you might as well use Signals1 instead of 2, if
you don't need any synchronization and are concerned about the overhead.

Or did I get that wrong? I'm not a regular user of any Signals library
and just read the documentation some time ago, so I'm really not sure.


Boost-users list run by williamkempf at, kalb at, bjorn.karlsson at, gregod at, wekempf at