Re: [Boost-users] Re: [Signals] Observation about performance

It might be a good idea to launch the benchmark in a seperate thread, then call something like: double GetThreadTime(HANDLE t) { __int64 c, e, k, u; GetThreadTimes(t, (FILETIME*)&c, (FILETIME*)&e, (FILETIME*)&k, (FILETIME*)&u); return u/10000000.0; // user-mode time in seconds } to get a more precise time. On 5/10/05, Keith MacDonald wrote:

Doug,

Following up my previous message, I have run the tests with Boost 1.32.0 and can see what you mean about a drastic improvement. The full set of figures are:

VC8.0 GOF Observer: 109 VC8.0 Signals 1.33.0: 6203

VC7.1 GOF Observer: 78 VC7.1 Signals 1.32.0: 112109

It's interesting that the Observer pattern is actually slower with VC 8.

- Keith MacDonald

"Doug Gregor" wrote in message news:9d494fe2c9d82d8a37c8c9a18f1b553e@cs.indiana.edu...

...

The performance of Signals has been drastically improved in 1.33.0 thanks to a patch from Robert Zeh. It may still not be as quick as a specific implementation of the Observer pattern, but it's much more reasonable now.

Doug

_______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users

-- Cory Nelson http://www.int64.org