Proceeding to timing tests.Calibrating overhead......done Timer overhead (t_c) ~= : 117.426 Jitter ~= : 25.9133 qi_parse vs atoi : 86.0764 86.3074 86.4471% faster. qi_parse vs strtol : 71.9253 72.1881 72.5288% faster. strtol vs atoi : 8.0502 8.26097 8.47215% faster. qi_parse vs qi_parse : -0.0274542 0.0393936 0.231944% faster.
All done! ====================
On my platform this is entirely consistent with the simple one-liner modification you mentioned to the previous code.
Take home message - yes Spirit really *is* faster.
Enter buffer size: 10000 initializing input strings...
Checking that the parsers are functioning correctly... atoi is behaving itself! strtol is behaving itself! qi is behaving itself!
Proceeding to timing tests.Calibrating overhead......done Timer overhead (t_c) ~= : 12 Jitter ~= : 8.43769e-015 qi_parse vs atoi : 160.834 187.892 197.781% faster. qi_parse vs strtol : 152.088 173.709 197.184% faster. strtol vs atoi : 5.34019 7.29527 9.82952% faster. qi_parse vs qi_parse : -3.12862 -0.194198 1.53912% faster.
All done!
[fixed with font required] Interesting. So, there is no difference between the speedup of strtol and atoi between your platform and mine (their confidence intervals overlap). strtol vs atoi OvermindDL1: [5.3 ---------x-------- 9.8] % Ed: [8.1 --x- 8.5] % on the other hand qi_parse is significantly faster under Windows on your architecture compared to atoi than OS X. qi_parse vs atoi OvermindDL1: [160.8 ---------x-- 197.8] % Ed: [86.0 -----x----- 86.4] % Likewise in both cases the timing of qi_parse against itself shows no difference since the confidence interval includes zero. qi_parse vs qi_parse OvermindDL1: [-3.13 ----------- 0 ----------- +1.54] % Ed: [-0.03 -- 0 -- +0.23] %
MSVC definitely compiles templates code better then GCC
More warnings?
it seems (you said you were using GCC yes?).
Yes.... I wonder why am I starting to feel sheepish about that... -ed