From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.25.86.130 with SMTP id k124mr4439357lfb.6.1466648713064; Wed, 22 Jun 2016 19:25:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.157.53.22 with SMTP id o22mr421489otc.7.1466648712971; Wed, 22 Jun 2016 19:25:12 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!w10no7361470lbo.0!news-out.google.com!f5ni11856lbb.0!nntp.google.com!w10no7361469lbo.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 19:25:12 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=216.121.226.25; posting-account=ENgozAkAAACH-stq5yXctoDQeZQP2E6J NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.121.226.25 References: <66c14298-c62d-4f4b-b0c0-e969454f9334@googlegroups.com> <4da8ad8e-f6b4-46b3-b81d-b255c030a45c@googlegroups.com> <6100770a-774c-41a7-b1d9-498f80426835@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <5fb8dcef-c4e8-4bc5-b90a-b8919112de25@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Generic Embedded List Nodes From: Warren Injection-Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 02:25:13 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:30886 Date: 2016-06-22T19:25:12-07:00 List-Id: On Wednesday, 22 June 2016 20:37:08 UTC-4, Randy Brukardt wrote: ... > The bounded containers are designed for the purpose of low-overhead > operations; in particular, they don't do allocation/deallocation of memory > for individual objects. You ought to check out whether those are high enough > performance for your purposes before reinventing the wheel... (especially > using the check suppression implemented in the latest GNAT versions). I just posted (to Niklas) what will likely be the solution- a large array indexed by socket number. That is prolly the cleanest way I can do this cheap, at the expense of a little bit of memory. > (Most programmers, myself included, are terrible at determining what matters > for performance of a particular application. The only way to be sure that > something is too slow is to try it...) > > Randy. Agreed. In my day job (where we try lots of things), I do benchmarks on the C++ servers I write and maintain. Experience shows that it takes very little to slow down the transaction rate and there are often surprises. Here though, in Ada, I'm just playing around with a version of it as a hobby horse. It would be nice if I could someday compare the Ada version against the C++ version. So I'm just chipping away at this. Warren