Re: [Boost-users] [Signals2] Signal memory overhead

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [Signals2] Signal memory overhead
From: Igor R (boost.lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-21 05:36:29

> 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.

Signals2 has one more advantage: it allows tracking slots by weak_ptr.