From: Michael Marcin (mmarcin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-09-18 14:20:28
Tobias Schwinger wrote:
> Doug Gregor wrote:
>> On Sep 14, 2007, at 4:05 PM, Michael Marcin wrote:
>>
>>> I ran across http://www.codeproject.com/cpp/fastdelegate2.asp the
>>> other
>>> day. I searched the archives and didn't find any discussion about
>>> it on
>>> the list.
>>>
>>> It makes some good arguments and seems to be done pretty well,
>>> although
>>> it may have succumb to a bit of feature creep.
>>>
>>> Should those benchmarks be reran against the trunk version of
>>> Boost.Function?
>> Yes, those tests should certainly be rerun now that Boost.Function
>> does the small-object optimization. Copy performance for such small
>> objects is much, much improved.
>
> I once hacked a quick benchmark to compare dispatch times of
> Bind&Function (1.34 versions) vs. FastDelegate.
>
> With an inlineable replacement for 'boost::mem_fn' (accepting the member
> function pointer as a non-type template argument)
>
> http://tinyurl.com/37tkap
>
> FastDelegate turned out to be (not quite) twice as fast as Function&Bind
> with MSVC, which isn't that much IMO held against the lost flexibility,
> such as not being able to use arbitrary function objects and only
> binding 'this'.
>
> However, things looked quite a bit worse with GCC (version 4 IIRC, don't
> remember the exact numbers), a good chunk of it because of not-optimized
> compile-time const member pointers.
>
> So FastDelegate is still be several times faster when it comes to member
> function pointers that are runtime values...
>
>
There are several fast delegates floating around. I saw discussion in
the archives about:
http://www.codeproject.com/cpp/fastdelegate.asp
but not
http://www.codeproject.com/cpp/fastdelegate2.asp
which is completely different AFAIK.
Which did you compare against before?
Thanks,
Michael Marcin