On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Daniel Walker <daniel.j.walker@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. <jhellrung@ucla.edu> wrote:
On 11/02/2010 02:50 PM, Daniel Walker wrote: [...]
Here are the results I got, again, using the build of g++ 4.2 provided by my manufacturer.
Data (Release): | function | function (static empty) time/call | 3.54e-07s | 3.51e-07s space/type | 64B | 80B
Data (Debug): | function | function (static empty) time/call | 2.05e-06s | 2.04e-06s space/type | 64B | 80B
You can see that removing the empty check from boost::function yields about a 1% improvement in time per call to boost::signal. The increased space per type overhead is the same as before: 16B.
[...]
[Butting in after only vaguely following this thread...]
Would it also be appropriate to measure the "space/call", in addition to "time/call" and "space/type"? Or is there no difference, or had this been addressed already?
Well, a call to boost::function does not cost any additional space. However, there is a space/object cost, which the other benchmark does measure. The space overhead per boost::function object is constant. On my machine it's 32B for both of the empty state schemes.
Can someone please explain why does storing the empty state take space per type? Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode