Re: STDCXX-1056 [was: Re: STDCXX forks]

2012-09-16 Thread Stefan Teleman
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Liviu Nicoara nikko...@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

Re: STDCXX-1056 [was: Re: STDCXX forks]

2012-09-16 Thread Liviu Nicoara
On 9/16/12 3:20 AM, Stefan Teleman wrote: On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Liviu Nicoara nikko...@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

Re: STDCXX-1056 [was: Re: STDCXX forks]

2012-09-16 Thread Liviu Nicoara
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 nikko...@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)