Doug Gregor wrote:
On Feb 11, 2005, at 9:51 AM, Peter Dimov wrote:
Douglas Gregor wrote:
Background: Signals performance is sub-par, and much of the problem can be traced back to support for named slot groups. I'm trying to determine the best way to proceed.
Are you sure that this is the case?
There may be other issues, but going from a std::list to a std::map (as needed to efficiently support connection of named slots) hurts iteration performance and increases executable code size. To counter the latter problem, I've done some type erasure that slows it down further and causes some of the extra heap allocations :(
You mean disconnection of named slots, right? List connection is O(1), map - O(log N). You get ordering for free with a map, sure, but this is a separate issue. Anyway, I'm sure that few people would miss named slots. Lets' drop them. :-)