incubator-stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Teleman <stefan.tele...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: STDCXX-1056 [was: Re: STDCXX forks]
Date Thu, 06 Sep 2012 03:03:23 GMT
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 10:55 PM, Martin Sebor <msebor@gmail.com> wrote:

> I suspect the difference is due to the overhead of the repeated
> initialization and destruction of the per-object mutex in the
> test. The test repeatedly creates (and discards) named locale
> objects.
>
> The per-class mutex is initialized just once in the process, no
> matter how many facet objects (how many distinct named locales)
> the test creates. But the per-object mutex must be created (and
> destroyed) for each named locale.

Agreed.

But: if the choice is between an implementation which [1] breaks ABI
and [2] performs 20% worse -- even in contrived test cases -- than
another implementation [2] which doesn't break ABI, and performs
better than the first one,  why would we even consider the first one?

--Stefan

-- 
Stefan Teleman
KDE e.V.
stefan.teleman@gmail.com

Mime
View raw message