On 10/26/12 18:50, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/26/2012 06:50 AM, Liviu Nicoara wrote:
[...]
tl;dr: removing the facet data cache is a priority. All else can be put
on the back-burner.
[...]
// facet data accessor
...
if (0 == _C_impsize) { // 1
mutex_lock ();
if (_C_impsize)
On 10/03/12 11:10, Martin Sebor wrote:
[...]
I was just thinking of a few simple loops along the lines of:
void* thread_func (void*) {
for (int i = 0; i N; ++)
test 1: do some simple stuff inline
test 2: call a virtual function to do the same stuff
On 10/26/2012 06:50 AM, Liviu Nicoara wrote:
On 10/03/12 11:10, Martin Sebor wrote:
[...]
I was just thinking of a few simple loops along the lines of:
void* thread_func (void*) {
for (int i = 0; i N; ++)
test 1: do some simple stuff inline
test 2: call a virtual function to do the same stuff
On 10/03/12 11:10, Martin Sebor wrote:
[...]
I was just thinking of a few simple loops along the lines of:
tl;dr: I consider the results of the multi-threaded performance tests (12S,
Intel/AMD multicores) as coming from heavy contention in copying of
reference-counted std::string objects.
On 10/04/12 22:41, Liviu Nicoara wrote:
On 10/4/12 10:10 PM, Liviu Nicoara wrote:
On 10/3/12 11:10 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/03/2012 07:01 AM, Liviu Nicoara wrote:
void* thread_func (void*) {
for (int i = 0; i N; ++)
test 1: do some simple stuff inline
On 10/3/12 11:10 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/03/2012 07:01 AM, Liviu Nicoara wrote:
I am gathering some more measurements along these lines but it's time
consuming. I estimate I will have some ready for review later today or
tomorrow. In the meantime could you please post your kernel, glibc
On 10/4/12 10:10 PM, Liviu Nicoara wrote:
On 10/3/12 11:10 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/03/2012 07:01 AM, Liviu Nicoara wrote:
I am gathering some more measurements along these lines but it's time
consuming. I estimate I will have some ready for review later today or
tomorrow. In the
On 10/02/12 10:41, Martin Sebor wrote:
I haven't had time to look at this since my last email on
Sunday. I also forgot about the string mutex. I don't think
I'll have time to spend on this until later in the week.
Unless the disassembly reveals the smoking gun, I think we
might need to simplify
On 10/03/2012 07:01 AM, Liviu Nicoara wrote:
On 10/02/12 10:41, Martin Sebor wrote:
I haven't had time to look at this since my last email on
Sunday. I also forgot about the string mutex. I don't think
I'll have time to spend on this until later in the week.
Unless the disassembly reveals the
On 09/30/12 18:18, 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
I haven't had time to look at this since my last email on
Sunday. I also forgot about the string mutex. I don't think
I'll have time to spend on this until later in the week.
Unless the disassembly reveals the smoking gun, I think we
might need to simplify the test to get to the bottom of the
On 9/30/12 2:21 PM, Liviu Nicoara wrote:
Forwarding with the attachment.
Original Message
Subject: Re: STDCXX-1071 numpunct facet defect
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2012 12:09:10 -0600
From: Martin Sebor mse...@gmail.com
To: Liviu Nicoara nikko...@hates.ms
On 9/27/12 8:27 PM, Martin
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
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 nikko...@hates.ms
To: Martin Sebor mse...@gmail.com
On 9/30/12 6:18 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
I see you did a 64-bit
14 matches
Mail list logo
