AuroraMiddleware/fmtlegacy
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Releases Wiki Activity

Update readme.

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Victor Zverovich 2012-12-07 14:32:48 -08:00
parent 659dd37b79
commit 58e53b4370
1 changed files with 34 additions and 32 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

66
README.rst
View File

@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ Features
* Format string syntax similar to the one used by `str.format
<http://docs.python.org/2/library/stdtypes.html#str.format>`__ in Python.
* Support for user-defined types.
* High speed: performance of the current proof-of-concept implementation
is close to that of iostreams (see `Speed tests`_).
* Small code size both in terms of source code (format consists of a single
@ -15,12 +16,13 @@ Features
(see `Compile time and code bloat`_).
* Easy deployment: small self-contained code base, no external dependencies,
permissive license.
* Support for user-defined types.
Example
-------
Examples
--------
fmt::Print("Hello, {0}!") << "world";
This prints "Hello, world!" to stdout:
fmt::Print("Hello, {0}!") << "world";
Benchmarks
----------
@ -28,6 +30,34 @@ Benchmarks
Compile time and code bloat
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Speed tests
~~~~~~~~~~~
The following speed tests results were generated by building
``tinyformat_test.cpp`` on Ubuntu GNU/Linux 12.10 with
``g++-4.7.2 -O3 -DSPEED_TEST -DHAVE_FORMAT``, and taking the best of three
runs. In the test, the format string ``"%0.10f:%04d:%+g:%s:%p:%c:%%\n"`` or
equivalent is filled 2000000 times with output sent to ``/dev/null``; for
further details see the `source
<https://github.com/vitaut/tinyformat/blob/master/tinyformat_test.cpp>`__.
============== ========
test name run time
============== ========
libc printf 1.26s
std::ostream 2.02s
format 2.20s
tinyformat 2.51s
boost::format 10.40s
============== ========
As you can see boost::format is much slower than the alternative methods; this
is confirmed by `other tests <http://accu.org/index.php/journals/1539>`__.
Tinyformat is quite good coming close to iostreams. Unfortunately tinyformat
cannot be faster than the iostreams because it uses them internally.
Performance of format is close to that of std::ostream but there is a room for
improvement since format is not based on iostreams.
The script ``bloat_test.sh`` from the `tinyformat
<https://github.com/c42f/tinyformat>`__ repository tests compile time and
code bloat for nontrivial projects. It generates 100 translation units
@ -67,34 +97,6 @@ executable size is smaller with tinyformat then with format and for
non-optimized build its the other way around. Boost::format has by far
the largest overheads.
Speed tests
~~~~~~~~~~~
The following speed tests results were generated by building
``tinyformat_test.cpp`` on Ubuntu GNU/Linux 12.10 with
``g++-4.7.2 -O3 -DSPEED_TEST -DHAVE_FORMAT``, and taking the best of three
runs. In the test, the format string ``"%0.10f:%04d:%+g:%s:%p:%c:%%\n"`` or
equivalent is filled 2000000 times with output sent to ``/dev/null``; for
further details see the `source
<https://github.com/vitaut/tinyformat/blob/master/tinyformat_test.cpp>`__.
============== ========
test name run time
============== ========
libc printf 1.26s
std::ostream 2.02s
format 2.20s
tinyformat 2.51s
boost::format 10.40s
============== ========
As you can see boost::format is much slower than the alternative methods; this
is confirmed by `other tests <http://accu.org/index.php/journals/1539>`__.
Tinyformat is quite good coming close to iostreams. Unfortunately tinyformat
cannot be faster than the iostreams because it uses them internally.
Performance of format is close to that of std::ostream but there is a room for
improvement since format is not based on iostreams.
Running the tests
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~