stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Liviu Nicoara <nikko...@hates.ms>
Subject Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: STDCXX-1071 numpunct facet defect
Date Sun, 30 Sep 2012 23:25:18 GMT
Forwarding to the list. Duh.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: STDCXX-1071 numpunct facet defect
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2012 19:02:27 -0400
From: Liviu Nicoara <nikkoara@hates.ms>
To: Martin Sebor <msebor@gmail.com>

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.

Liviu





Mime
View raw message