Re: [Boost-users] Signals2 benchmark

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Signals2 benchmark
From: Eric Prud'hommeaux (eric_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-02-07 03:12:41

* Tim Janus <timjanus_at_[hidden]> [2015-02-06 10:21+0100]
> Am 06.02.2015 um 08:49 schrieb Dominique Devienne:
> >On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:15 AM, Joren Heit <jorenheit_at_[hidden]
> ><mailto:jorenheit_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
> >
> >    I have been working on [...] a template-based Signal/Slot library
> >    [...],I want to test it against boost::signals2 to get an idea of
> >    how well it performs.
> >
> >    [...]. Initial tests show that my own library can be up to 10
> >    times faster than the boost-implementation, [...]
> >
> >
> >This benchmark [1] might be of interest. --DD
> >
> >PS: In particular, note how the one asterisk'd with "Library aims
> >to be thread safe" are at the bottom.
> >
> >https://github.com/NoAvailableAlias/nano-signal-slot/tree/master/benchmark#performance
> >
> >
> Great reference!
> But comparing thread-safe implementations with implementations that
> are not thread-safe seems a bit unfair to me.

Is it reallistic that folks would want a variant of signals that's not
threadsafe, trading some callback restrictions for performance?

> A benchmark that uses the dummy_mutex policy [1] of signals2 would
> be very interesting.
> 
> Greetings
> Tim
> 
> [1] http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_57_0/doc/html/signals2/rationale.html#idp430226096

> _______________________________________________
> Boost-users mailing list
> Boost-users_at_[hidden]
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users

-- 
-ericP
office: +1.617.599.3509
mobile: [phone]
(eric_at_[hidden])
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.
There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout
which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.