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

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [Signals2] Signal memory overhead
From: Norbert Wenzel (norbert.wenzel.lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-21 05:51:26

On 21.03.2012 10:36, Igor R wrote:
>> 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.

Thanks for the clarification.

Norbert