Re: [ANN] luabind 0.9-rc1

liam mail wrote:
> Ok I ran the same test using g++ (Ubuntu 4.4.1-4ubuntu8) 4.4.1
> I got the same results as you did, it seems you have made huge improvements
> for the gcc version by for some reason mscv is lagging.

Here are my results for VC9.0:

> OOLua access (average elapsed time):    0.4719
> OOLua passing derived to a function that wants a base  (average elapsed time): 0.4188
> OOLua passing derived with multiple bases to a function that wants a base  (average elapsed time):      0.4328
> OOLua virtual function  (average elapsed time): 0.2046
> OOLua pure virtual function  (average elapsed time):    0.2156
> OOLua - Lua function which takes a base and calls a virtual function (average elapsed time): 0.2031
> Swig access (average elapsed time):     0.9297
> Swig passing derived to a function that wants a base  (average elapsed time): 0.4781
> Swig passing derived with multiple bases to a function that wants a base  (average elapsed time):       0.4922
> Swig virtual function  (average elapsed time):  0.4313
> Swig pure virtual function  (average elapsed time):     0.4344
> Swig - Lua function which takes a base and calls a virtual function (average elapsed time): 0.4297
> Luabind access (average elapsed time):  0.7953
> Luabind passing derived to a function that wants a base  (average elapsed time):         0.5734
> Luabind passing derived with multiple bases to a function that wants a base (average elapsed time):     0.5921
> Luabind virtual function  (average elapsed time):       0.4656
> Luabind pure virtual function  (average elapsed time):  0.4719
> Luabind - Lua function which takes a base and calls a virtual function (average elapsed time): 0.4093

Are you sure you built the benchmark correctly with 0.9?

-- 
Daniel Wallin
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return on Information:
Google Enterprise Search pays you back
Get the facts.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/google-dev2dev