Сергей Шамбир (iSpring) - “Быстрые и надёжные сигналы-слоты в C++”
However, it relied on the Qt Moc pre-compiler tool, which meant and mill drill slot end project that wanted to use this feature had to use c boost signals and slots along with the Qt hard drive slot definition, which really made Qt applications look potentially foreign despite being written in C++.
In addition to this the implementation wasn't https://deposit-games-spin.website/and-slots/cross-drilled-and-slotted-brake-rotors.html a.
Not thread safe, performance wasn't great, now deprecated in favor of Boost Signals2.
Licensed under the Boost Liscense.
Thread safe upgrade of Boost Signals.
Others have complained about its performance, but my tests seem to show it's at least decent.
Licensed under the Boost Liscense.
Supposedly decently quick, but not thread safe.
Also licensed under LGPL, making use somewhat restricted.
A thread safe fairly quick quick implementation.
However, it skimps on features I think it offers similar features to Qt's implementation.
Also licensed under LGPL.
This is CC0 licensed public domain.
Probably one of the fastest implementations I have seen, but is not thread-safe.
I was wondering if I could implement a more feature-full implementation like Boost Signals2 bet with better performance like libtscb.
I'll be using some C++11 features like the last implementation, notably atomics, std::function, and variadic templates.
These libraries are being used because currently the compiler I'm using doesn't have the standard variants implemented Mingw w64 gcc-4.
For the most part, I was able to implement or actually, can see a straight-forward implementation nearly all of the features provided by Boost Signals2.
There are some semantic changes notably the interface for combiners is differentand I was unable to capture the O log n performance of inserting group-ordered slots.
My implementation likely will have O n group insertion.
It seems like c boost signals and slots usually can be evaluated asynchronously, but they could be strongly ordered, too.
In any case, only forward iteration is required for emitting a signal.
Thinking about how c boost signals and slots best reach these goals, I decided to use an implementation which guarantees a wait-free singly linked list for read operations.
The back-end implementation is still a doubly linked list, and only one c boost signals and slots is allowed at a time.
I wanted to see if I could implement using only standard C++11, and theoretically I could have, but unfortunately I don't have access to a compiler with all the necessary features.
There's not really much good reason for doing so other than.
Currently my implementation uses https://deposit-games-spin.website/and-slots/charlie-and-the-chocolate-factory-slot-machine-online.html C++11 features not supported by any release of Visual Studio 2012 or olderbut in the future I want to work towards C++03 compatibility using various Boost libraries since I'm already using a few for c boost signals and slots purpose.
This is not the full code, but a near-bare bones implementation which at least shows the usage and some implementation details.
In other words, not lock-free.
The basic structure of the Signal class is a doubly linked list, but there internally the linked list ensures that atomically there is always a valid singly linked list from any node to the tail.
I am unaware of any generic lock-free doubly linked list implementation which has all of the features I need, so the trade off I'm making is only one writer is allowed at a time.
In order to make signal emission lock-free, I decided to use head and tail nodes.
Operations which will change the implicit singly linked list must be atomic, otherwise they do not.
The solution I came up with means the iterator object encapsulated all state internally, in particular if it is the end node.
This means that no separate end iterator is passed.
I think the problem c boost signals and slots be resolved using a similar single inheritance chain like I did for the slots classes, though I haven't tried this out yet.
I am using a std::tuple to store parameters for later execution, and unpacking them using the technique.
I've omitted a sample Combiner implementation because there's not much different about it other than keeping in mind an iterator currently encapsulates the end state.
For Qt test I'm using VS2012 x64, and for the other tests I'm using Mingw-w64 gcc 4.
Basically, I didn't want to re-compile Qt with mingw since I already had it built c boost signals and slots VS2012.
I'm going to time how long it takes to emit signals with various number of number of slots yes, I am averaging over many signal emits.
The std::function calls is repeated calls to a std::function wrapping this to handler, more or less used to determine how much time is spent doing actual slot work.
Well, unfortunately it's difficult to know exactly how Qt compares to the others because of the different compilers.
However, it is probably safe to say Qt has some short-circuit mechanism for handling empty signals.
I suspect my implementation would handle multiple emits with a single writer quite easily because this is what the implementation targets.
I don't know how Qt or Boost Signals2 are implemented under the hood, but I suspect both of them use some sort of locking mechanism on emits.
Conclusion I don't know exactly how bad Boost Signals2 performed in the past, but as far as I can tell it is probably "acceptable" most of the time.
However, it does perform poorly when there are no slots connected.
I'm going to keep working on this implementation and will eventually release it when it's done right now it basically works, but many features are unimplemented.
The cost is not as good as is possible with non-thread safe implementations, but there are nice gains.
I may even try submitting it for inclusion in Boost either as signals3, or use parts to improve signals2.
Daniel Eriksson / Johan Thelin: Getting Qt's signal/slot mechanism in standard C++
The Boost.Signals library is an implementation of a managed signals and slots system. Signals represent callbacks with multiple targets, and are also called publishers or events in similar systems.
I think, that you are not right. I am assured. I can defend the position. Write to me in PM.
I think, that you are not right. I can defend the position. Write to me in PM, we will discuss.
You are absolutely right. In it something is and it is excellent idea. I support you.
I think, that you are not right. I can defend the position. Write to me in PM.
In my opinion the theme is rather interesting. I suggest you it to discuss here or in PM.
Instead of criticism advise the problem decision.
It agree, a useful piece
You are mistaken. Write to me in PM, we will communicate.
Certainly. And I have faced it. We can communicate on this theme.
Yes, almost same.
I apologise, but I need absolutely another. Who else, what can prompt?
Quite right! Idea excellent, I support.
It that was necessary for me. I Thank you for the help in this question.
Whom can I ask?
Completely I share your opinion. It is excellent idea. It is ready to support you.
I consider, that the theme is rather interesting. Give with you we will communicate in PM.
I will know, I thank for the help in this question.
Idea good, it agree with you.
You were visited with a remarkable idea