stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Liviu Nicoara <nikko...@hates.ms>
Subject Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: STDCXX-1071 numpunct facet defect
Date Mon, 01 Oct 2012 12:06:22 GMT
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 <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.

I am re-attaching the disassembled routines; I have included in the non-cached version the
disassembled calls made from f.

Liviu


Mime
View raw message