On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 7:38 AM, Rutger ter Borg <rutger@terborg.net> wrote:
// server
SomeClass myclass; Server myserver( &myclass, "my.named.service" );
// client
RemoteInterface<SomeClass> ri( "my.named.service" ); int result = ri.add(1,4); assert( result == 5 ) ri.sub( 5, 1, &result ); assert( result == 4 ); ri.inout(result); assert( result == 9 );
Hello Dan,
I'm interested. Is the assumption of classes and member functions needed? What about mimicking the boost::function interface?
asio::io_service ios; client m_client( ios, "rpc://server/" );
remote_function< void( int ) > m_func = m_client( "some.resource" );
Yep, that is how mine worked, just based on a Boost.Function interface. On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 8:57 AM, Daniel Larimer <dlarimer@gmail.com> wrote:
I need to run some benchmarks, but I believe that the "cost" of using a stub<MyClass,default_delegate> vs a direct pointer to MyClass is at most one function call and a member function pointer de-reference and at best, completely inlined so as to be "identical" at run time.
Does anyone have any pointers on how to "compare" the asm generated by a particular line or group of lines of code? I would like to see how much inlining is actually going on and monitor the cause/effects of different template/code structures on the resulting code.
If you come up with some benchmarks I would like to compare it to what I made a couple of years ago (where I was admittedly not as experienced with such things as I am now), so if you could post the complete compilable example with included libraries, I am interested.