stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martin Sebor <>
Subject Re: STDCXX-1056 [was: Re: STDCXX forks]
Date Thu, 06 Sep 2012 03:51:56 GMT
On 09/05/2012 09:03 PM, Stefan Teleman wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 10:55 PM, Martin Sebor <> 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?

Breaking the ABI is not an option (unless we rev the version).
But I'm not sure I understand what you think breaks the ABI.
We don't need to add a new mutex -- we can use the __rw_facet
member for the locking. Or did you mean something else?


> --Stefan

View raw message