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

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.