From: Andreas Huber (ahd6974-spamgroupstrap_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-25 11:14:05
BRIDGES Dick wrote:
>> PingPongSingle: 1.06 / 1.07
>> PingPongMulti1: 5.41 / 5.43
>> PingPongMulti2: 12.34 / 12.26
>>
>> BitMachineCustom3: 0.18 / 0.19
>
> [snip_similar_results]
>
> Looks more like what I would expect.
> BTW: Could I talk you into trading computers? ;)
:-)
[snip]
>> Given the numbers above I don't see any problems whatsoever. Not on
> the
>> tested processors, that is. I can't say whether the picture is the
> same
>> for processors used in the embedded world.
>
> I may know the answer for some ARM machines soon - I hope. ;) I'll
> try
> the BitMachine* tests if I can get the cross compilers to build them.
I would be very interested in the numbers.
>>> and 2) can
>>> someone help me understand what I did wrong in setting up this test?
>>
>> Difficult to say. Could you build with bjam and repeat the test?
>
> I followed the instructions to build the examples. Changed to the
> example directory and ran <<bjam "sTOOLS=gcc">>. I got lazy and only
> ran the PingPong* progs. Guess I should have mentioned that. %>]
Oh, sorry. The fact that you saw the warnings led me to believe that the
examples weren't built with bjam.
> Any chance that, in the absence of some future evidence to the
> contrary, those dtorS can be made virtual in the library?
I'm at least reluctant to do that. Given the abundance of platforms that
support C++ we can never be sure that there is not one where performance
will suffer significantly when the dtors are made virtual. From the 3
compilers I use GCC is the only one that a) has such a non-virtual dtor
warning *and* b) doesn't have a pragma to turn off warnings. Hopefully,
the latter will soon be taken care of...
Regards,
-- Andreas Huber When replying by private email, please remove the words spam and trap from the address shown in the header.