incubator-stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Eric Lemings" <Eric.Lemi...@roguewave.com>
Subject RE: stdcxx stringstreams 2x slower than gcc
Date Wed, 07 May 2008 15:01:49 GMT
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:msebor@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Martin Sebor
> Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 8:39 AM
> To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
> Subject: Re: stdcxx stringstreams 2x slower than gcc
> 
> Eric Lemings wrote:
> >  
> > 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:msebor@gmail.com] On Behalf Of 
> Martin Sebor
> >> Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 9:43 PM
> >> To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: stdcxx stringstreams 2x slower than gcc
> >>
> > ...
> >> I think the difference between 8D and 12D is due to the mutex
> >> in stingstream. Even though there's no locking the mutex still
> >> is initialized and that's what I suspect accounts for the slow
> >> runtimes. We need an issue to remind us to fix it as soon as
> >> binary compatibility permits it.
> > 
> > I conclude from this that the mutex is exposed in the public ABI?
> > If so, why?  I would think the mutex would not need be a part of
> > the public ABI.
> 
> You're right, it shouldn't be but, regretfully, it is. Hence
> STDCXX-914: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-914
> (With C++ templates it can be a challenge to avoid exposing
> implementation details like this)

Challenging but not impossible?  ;)

Brad.

Mime
View raw message