Hi Joerg ----- Mensaje original ----- De: jhr.walter@t-online.de (Joerg Walter) Fecha: Sábado, Marzo 27, 2004 6:44 pm Asunto: Re: [boost] Re: Formal Review: Indexed Set

OTOH it might be surprising to search for the components of one library in different namespaces.

Yes, probably indexed_set should live in boost::container::whatever with the rest of associated components, and additionally, be lifted to boost or boost::container.

Two more remarks:

1. Documentation

My linux browser (konqueror) has difficulties to correctly display the indexed_set documentation. HTML tidy shows a couple of problems.

Please send them to me privately and I'll try to fix them.

2. Performance test

Compiling the performance tests with ICC 8.0 uncovered a problem in indexed_set.hpp:

67,69c67,69 < template <typename,typename,typename,typename> friend class detail::index_base; < template <typename,typename> friend class detail::header_holder; < template <typename,typename> friend class detail::converter; ---

...

template <typename,typename,typename> friend class detail::index_base;> template <typename,typename> friend class detail::header_holder; template <typename,typename> friend class detail::converter;

There's an extra typename in the friend declaration for index_base, right? I wonder how this splipped through unnoticed for so long. I'll fix it, thanx for the tip.

Test results for GCC 3.3.2

1 regular index 10^3 elmts: 141.24% 10^4 elmts: 147.67% 10^5 elmts: 152.57% space gain: 100.00% 1 sequenced index 10^3 elmts: 154.99% 10^4 elmts: 157.43% 10^5 elmts: 153.71% space gain: 100.00% 2 regular indices 10^3 elmts: 108.23% 10^4 elmts: 124.78% 10^5 elmts: 121.79% space gain: 90.00% 1 regular index + 1 sequenced index 10^3 elmts: 123.96% 10^4 elmts: 137.12% 10^5 elmts: 145.98% space gain: 87.50% 3 regular indices 10^3 elmts: 100.11% 10^4 elmts: 119.70% 10^5 elmts: 129.12% space gain: 86.67% 2 regular indices + 1 sequenced index 10^3 elmts: 99.25% 10^4 elmts: 113.62% 10^5 elmts: 116.37% space gain: 84.62%

Test results for ICC 8.0

1 regular index 10^3 elmts: 105.45% 10^4 elmts: 106.74% 10^5 elmts: 105.98% space gain: 100.00% 1 sequenced index 10^3 elmts: 112.29% 10^4 elmts: 112.20% 10^5 elmts: 111.43% space gain: 100.00% 2 regular indices 10^3 elmts: 63.17% 10^4 elmts: 67.35% 10^5 elmts: 71.65% space gain: 90.00% 1 regular index + 1 sequenced index 10^3 elmts: 65.19% 10^4 elmts: 69.00% 10^5 elmts: 72.62% space gain: 87.50% 3 regular indices 10^3 elmts: 49.76% 10^4 elmts: 57.97% 10^5 elmts: 60.94% space gain: 86.67% 2 regular indices + 1 sequenced index 10^3 elmts: 49.07% 10^4 elmts: 52.71% 10^5 elmts: 51.55% space gain: 84.62%

I don't have an explanation for the difference.

How have you compiled the performance test in GCC? Maybe you forgot to turn on optimization flag -O3. The library has a jamfile that builds all the test, examples and the eprformance test, if you use this the performance program should compile in release mode. I except performance results to be roughly the same as with GCC 3.3.1, which I measured in my performance section. Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo