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 Sat, 15 Sep 2012 21:05:16 GMT
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Liviu Nicoara <nikkoara@hates.ms> wrote:

> Ahh, I see now. You are indeed right, that patch is defective. I was under
> the impression that we were discussing the (later) attachment
> stdcxx-1056-timings.tgz which contains a perfectly forwarding implementation
> of the facet public grouping method. The timings I attached there were the
> ones I thought we were discussing all along.
>
> 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.
>
> Please let me know if this clarifies things. I apologize for the
> misunderstanding.

It's ok, no need to apologize. I had no idea you had attached a new
patch, because I don't get any emails when it gets updated.

I could have sworn I was watching it so I don't know why I'm not
getting the emails. I didn't get an email about stdcxx-1066 either,
not even when I initially opened it, and that is also strange.

--Stefan

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

Mime
View raw message