Re: [Boost-users] Signals2 benchmark

Am 07.02.2015 um 09:12 schrieb Eric Prud'hommeaux:

...

Am 06.02.2015 um 08:49 schrieb Dominique Devienne:

...

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:15 AM, Joren Heit mailto:jorenheit@gmail.com> 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#p...

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

* Tim Janus [2015-02-06 10:21+0100] 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#idp430... _______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users

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