On Monday, March 28, 2011 07:03:46 PM lcaminiti wrote:
Thomas Heller-7 wrote:
On Monday, March 28, 2011 05:25:13 AM Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote: > On 03/26/2011 03:19 PM, Lorenzo Caminiti wrote: > > Hello all, > > > > I am updating Boost.Local docs and I could use a some help in getting > > the Alternatives section right > >
http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/local/libs/local/doc/html/boost_local...
> > You might include compile time and run time benchmarks, information > about error message quality, and polymorphic capabilities. > Additionally, you might note that with C++0x local classes can be used > with templates.
Just did a quick test ... code is attached ...
$ time g++ -O3 -I. -Wall -Wextra add.cpp -o add
real 0m0.657s user 0m0.583s sys 0m0.067s
$ time ./add 1e+12
real 0m35.641s user 0m35.618s sys 0m0.017s
$ time g++ -O3 -I. -Wall -Wextra add_boost_phoenix.cpp -o add_phoenix
real 0m3.385s user 0m3.160s sys 0m0.217s thomas@sunshine ~/programming/local $ time ./add_phoenix 1e+12
real 0m6.648s user 0m6.643s sys 0m0.007s
This is not a fare comparison because add.cpp contains also local blocks and exits while add_boost_phoenix.cpp contains only local functions. The comparison should be made between add_boost_local.cpp and add_boost_phoenix.cpp (see below). The example names got a bit confusing and I will rename add.cpp to add_funciton_block_exit.cpp to avoid similar misunderstandings in the future.
Seriously? Did you even look at the files i attached?
A quick compile and run time comparison using Cygwin. I have ran `time` 3 times and I am reporting the result with the middle `real` value. I will get more statistically meaningful results (avg and std-dev over 100 executions...) and on a real Linux system.
Compile-Time ($ time g++ -O3 -Wall -Wextra -I... ) ------------- Boost.Local (add_boost_local.cpp) real = 6.188 s user = 0.885 s system = 1.495 s Local Classes (add_local_class.cpp) real = 3.828 s user = 0.525 s system = 0.464 s C++0x Lambas (add_cpp0x_lambda.cpp) Not available. Boost.Lambda (add_boost_lambda.cpp) real = 5.515 s user = 0.948 s system = 1.136 s Boost.Phoenix (add_boost_phoenix.cpp) real = 12.641 s user = 3.619 s system = 3.074 s
Run-Time ($ time ) --------- Boost.Local (add_boost_local.cpp) real = 0.547 s user = 0.030 s system = 0.030 s Local Classes (add_local_class.cpp) real = 0.532 s user = 0.030 s system = 0.061 s C++0x Lambas (add_cpp0x_lambda.cpp) Not available. Boost.Lambda (add_boost_lambda.cpp) real = 0.438 s user = 0.030 s system = 0.046s Boost.Phoenix (add_boost_phoenix.cpp) real = 0.500 s user = 0.030 s system = 0.046 s
These Boost.Local compile and run time performances look decent to me when compared with the other approaches (including the local class functor).
--Lorenzo
http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/file/n3412415/add_boost_local.cpp add_boost_local.cpp http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/file/n3412415/add_local_class.cpp add_local_class.cpp http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/file/n3412415/add_cpp0x_lambda.cpp add_cpp0x_lambda.cpp http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/file/n3412415/add_boost_lambda.cpp add_boost_lambda.cpp http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/file/n3412415/add_boost_phoenix.cpp add_boost_phoenix.cpp
Are you serious? Please write real benchmarks. By executing the resulting binaries of your code examples, the runtime is mainly dominated by process setup and the output on stdout. Take a look here: https://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/trunk/libs/spirit/optimization/ Again: Seriously?