Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-stdcxx-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 8029 invoked from network); 7 May 2008 15:03:02 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 7 May 2008 15:03:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 41021 invoked by uid 500); 7 May 2008 15:03:03 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-stdcxx-dev-archive@stdcxx.apache.org Received: (qmail 41002 invoked by uid 500); 7 May 2008 15:03:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@stdcxx.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@stdcxx.apache.org Received: (qmail 40990 invoked by uid 99); 7 May 2008 15:03:03 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 07 May 2008 08:03:03 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [208.30.140.160] (HELO moroha.roguewave.com) (208.30.140.160) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 07 May 2008 15:02:11 +0000 Received: from exchmail01.Blue.Roguewave.Com (exchmail01.blue.roguewave.com [10.22.129.22]) by moroha.roguewave.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m47F2UxP014705 for ; Wed, 7 May 2008 15:02:30 GMT X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: stdcxx stringstreams 2x slower than gcc Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 09:01:49 -0600 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: stdcxx stringstreams 2x slower than gcc Thread-Index: AciwUEdRkvohQcC9RkmPcrl3nf+/fQAAobVA References: <2494433f0805061557y29d20cb6jd41b6d58e56a6cd1@mail.gmail.com> <4821253F.6090808@roguewave.com> <4821BF01.7020008@roguewave.com> From: "Eric Lemings" To: X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org =20 > -----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 >=20 > Eric Lemings wrote: > > =20 > >=20 > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:msebor@gmail.com] On Behalf Of=20 > 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. > >=20 > > 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. >=20 > 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.