On 17/10/10 18:12, Christopher Lux wrote:
On 10/9/2010 John Carmack of id Software wrote on his Twitter account: “@ID_AA_Carmack: It took 69 single steps to get past a BOOST_FOREACH() statement. Madness.”
This made me think again about the overhead introduced with boost foreach. Is the overhead really this large as he makes it sound? Are there heuristics to when to use foreach according to the expected iteration counts?
I haven't counted exact number of steps, though it's unclear to me what John means exactly. Remembering some benchmarks on the list and assuming nothing has changed in the macro that could decrease its performance, I'd not be worried: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/BOOST-FOREACH-slow-tp2652445p2652464.html Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net Charter Member of OSGeo, http://osgeo.org Member of ACCU, http://accu.org