Re: [Boost-users] Signals2 benchmark

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 [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?

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
life with
a lot of restrictions" - Game developers and developers of realtime
programs.

>> 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
>

---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
http://www.avast.com