Sebastian Redl wrote: > Fariborz Jahanian wrote: > >> I am having the same concerns as Steve. We are adding enormous level >> of abstractions without looking at its consequences down the road. >> Aren't we >> concerned about potential performance implications for one (smart >> pointers don't >> get smart for cheap :). >> > They're not free, but they are pretty cheap. However, Doug messed up my > planned performance test by doing his name lookup rework at the same > time as I did the replacements. I still plan to do some serious testing > soon; however, I expect the largest impact to come from transforming the > Action interface to smart pointers, and I have only started with this. > So I did some rough performance testing. My test method was thus:
time Release/bin/clang -fsyntax-only insn-attrtab.i where insn-attrtab.i is a preprocessed version of GCC's insn-attrtab.c, a generated 3.3MB behemoth consisting mostly of a huge switch statement. I went through the SVN log and tested every version directly before and after every smart pointer-related commit of mine. I'm happy to say that over the entire length of the tested area (-r 60760:60983) the average user time needed to process the file has not changed significantly. A rough average (read: me running the command 5-10 times and taking a number that appeared to be in the middle of the observed times) went from 0.50 for 60760 to 0.52 for 60983, with a variation of +-0.03. I conclude that the changes done so far had no significant impact on performance. I'll keep testing. Sebastian _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
