[dahart]

I was talking about the Benchmarks game repo code. (But it doesn’t even matter because the SLE is equally bad.) And I was not comparing any averages, I was pointing out that use of boost is the entire reason the average is skewed and misleading. You seem to be misunderstanding my comments.

[igouy]

> I was talking about the benchmarks game repo code

Why? The benchmarks game doesn't show energy use of programs.

> use of boost is the entire reason

As you know, the fastest C++ program shown on the benchmarks game website uses pcre2.h.

[dahart]

In case you didn’t read the thread above or the comment I replied to, the subject had already veered away from energy use, with the comment by @tasubotadas, and my top comment was responding to that. I wasn’t ever commenting specifically on energy use per-se, I was commenting on the reason for the outlier, and responding to a specific comment about C++. That said, this just so happens to be completely relevant to both runtime and energy use. The benchmarks game and the SLE data both agree that using boost causes approximately an order of magnitude slowdown/energy increase to the regex-redux sample. I looked at both, and at your insistence I responded with SLE specific remarks. The lesson here is consider not using boost if you care about energy use, or about runtime. Is there a point you’re trying to make here?