stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Liviu Nicoara <nikko...@hates.ms>
Subject Re: STDCXX-1056 [was: Re: STDCXX forks]
Date Sun, 16 Sep 2012 18:38:26 GMT
On 9/16/12 11:21 AM, Liviu Nicoara wrote:
> On 9/16/12 3:20 AM, Stefan Teleman wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Liviu Nicoara <nikkoara@hates.ms> wrote:
>>
>>> Now, to clear the confusion I created: the timing numbers I posted in the
>>> attachment stdcxx-1056-timings.tgz to STDCXX-1066 (09/11/2012) showed that a
>>> perfectly forwarding, no caching public interface (exemplified by a changed
>>> grouping) performs better than the current implementation. It was that test
>>> case that I hoped you could time, perhaps on SPARC, in both MT and ST
>>> builds. The t.cpp program is for MT, s.cpp for ST.
>>
>> I got your patch, and have tested it.
>
> Thanks, Stefan. I looked over it and it seems very similar to, and somewhat more
> detailed than gprof profiling output.
>
> I am going to update the incident shortly with a more detailed timing
> measurements on my side, in the form of a new attachment. Just FYI in case you
> still don't get notifications.

I have attached a new set of results to the incident, in the form of the archive:

http://tinyurl.com/9drzg4e

Please see the content for a description of the library changes (_numpunct.h 
file), the MT test program (t.cpp) and the results collected through two 
separate builds on two different machines (results.txt file).

Thanks.

Liviu

Mime
View raw message