Boost Users :
Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Signals2 benchmark
From: Tim Janus (timjanus_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-02-07 05:05:01
Am 07.02.2015 um 09:12 schrieb Eric Prud'hommeaux:
> * 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  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.
>> 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?
Well, I think the majority of the audiences wont care. But I know at
least two groups
of developers who are always like: "I need the fasted solution and can
a lot of restrictions" - Game developers and developers of realtime
>> A benchmark that uses the dummy_mutex policy  of signals2 would
>> be very interesting.
>>  http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_57_0/doc/html/signals2/rationale.html#idp430226096
>> Boost-users mailing list
--- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft. http://www.avast.com
Boost-users list run by williamkempf at hotmail.com, kalb at libertysoft.com, bjorn.karlsson at readsoft.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, wekempf at cox.net