OvermindDL1 wrote: <snip>
As stated, I have heard that Visual Studio handles template stuff like Spirit better then GCC, so I am very curious how GCC's timings on this file would be.
Alas, gcc doesn't do so well. I had to make a few tweaks to your code (you typedefed int64_t at global scope which clashes with the one in the C library headers, and you used an INT64 macro which doesn't exist here) but then I got a very long error ending with this: .../boost-trunk/boost/proto/transform/call.hpp:146: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault I guess the metaprogramming is too much for it :(. That was with -O3 -DNDEBUG -march=native and gcc version: gcc (Gentoo 4.3.3-r2 p1.2, pie-10.1.5) 4.3.3 So then I tried icc 10.1 (essentially same options) which takes over a minute to compile this, but does succeed. With that I got: $ ./price-icc Loop count: 10000000 Parsing: 42.5 xpressive: 27.4704 spirit-quick(static): 1.58132 spirit-quick_new(threadsafe): 1.52971 spirit-grammar(threadsafe/reusable): 1.64666 which are much the same as your results (except ~1.7 times faster all round), but the Parsing result is obviously meaningless and the xpressive also dubious because of lexical_cast. I then tried with icc's inter-procedural optimisations turned on too, which improves the xpressive code significantly, but doesn't obviously affect spirit: $ ./price-icc-ipo Loop count: 10000000 Parsing: 42.5 xpressive: 17.3577 spirit-quick(static): 1.52487 spirit-quick_new(threadsafe): 1.51834 spirit-grammar(threadsafe/reusable): 1.65164 Finally I used static linking, and the xpressive time improved again, and maybe the others a little. This surprised me. $ ./price-icc-ipo-static Loop count: 10000000 Parsing: 42.5 xpressive: 12.6157 spirit-quick(static): 1.49887 spirit-quick_new(threadsafe): 1.48146 spirit-grammar(threadsafe/reusable): 1.62731 John Bytheway