Andrey Semashev <andysem <at> mail.ru> writes:
Hello Steven,
Wednesday, January 31, 2007, 10:02:24 PM, you wrote:
AMDG
Andrey Semashev wrote:
- A new example "BitMachine" added. It is quite similar to same-named example of Boost.Statechart and may be used as a performance test. - The Performance section of the docs updated with some test results.
First of all I think that the elapsed time is more useful than the number of iterations per second. I know that one is just the inverse of the other but the elapsed time has a linear correlation to the amount of work being done.
The elapsed time doesn't give you an absolute view of performance since it also depends on number of iterations. But I think I may present both figures in the docs.
Sorry. I wasn't clear. I meant time per iteration. I looked through state_machine.hpp again You changed "very base class" to "most base class." What you mean is ultimate base class I think. basic_state_machine::m_StatesInfo needs to be volatile. At the very least least cast it to volatile for initialization. This has nothing to do with sequence points; It has everything to do with observable behavior. line 912 template< typename EventT > static state_dispatcher< EventT > const& get_state_dispatcher() { static const state_dispatcher< EventT > dispatcher; return dispatcher; } function static is not thread safe. in pseudo-code this is { static no_initialize const state_dispatcher< EventT > dispatcher; static preinitialize bool dispatcher_initialized = false; if(!dispatcher_initialized) { dispatcher_initialized = true; dispatcher.dispatcher(); } return(dispatcher); } locking_state_machine.hpp dynamic_locker is unnecessary you can use scoped_lock this_lock(false); and this_lock.lock(); to do the same thing. Also for the comparisons of mutex addresses you should use std::less<void*> instead of operator< because operator< does not guarantee a strict weak ordering for pointers. see 5.9/2 and 20.3.3/8 In Christ, Steven Watanabe