On 09/30/12 19:25, Liviu Nicoara wrote: > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: STDCXX-1071 numpunct facet defect > Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2012 19:02:27 -0400 > From: Liviu Nicoara > To: Martin Sebor > > On 9/30/12 6:18 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: >> I see you did a 64-bit build while I did a 32-bit one. so >> I tried 64-bits. The cached version (i.e., the one compiled >> with -UNO_USE_NUMPUNCT_CACHE) is still about twice as fast >> as the non-cached one (compiled with -DNO_USE_NUMPUNCT_CACHE). >> >> I had made one change to the test program that I thought might >> account for the difference: I removed the call to abort from >> the thread function since it was causing the process to exit >> prematurely in some of my tests. But since you used the >> modified program for your latest measurements that couldn't >> be it. >> >> I can't explain the differences. They just don't make sense >> to me. Your results should be the other way around. Can you >> post the disassembly of function f() for each of the two >> configurations of the test? >> > > Here they are. I am re-attaching the disassembled routines; I have included in the non-cached version the disassembled calls made from f. Liviu