Travis Vitek wrote:
Doh! I should know better. Here is the results from a 12d build on the
same hardware.
Does this mean that there is almost no difference between the
intrinsic functions and the out of line ones, or that the test
is too simple to demonstrate them?
I expect the greatest
-Original Message-
From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 5:49 AM
To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use __rw_atomic_xxx() on Windows
Travis Vitek wrote:
Oh, yeah. that is the other thing that I did Friday. I wrote
Since we don't have a string perf test that I could find, I wrote up a
quick and dirty one that just made many copies of the same string
repeatedly to exercise the atomic increment/decrement. The results show
a 3% performance penalty when using the newer atomic functions. This
test was run with
] Use __rw_atomic_xxx() on Windows
What's the status of this? We need to decide if we can put this
in 4.2 or defer it for 4.2.1. To put it in 4.2 we need to make
sure the new functions don't cause a performance regression in
basic_string. I.e., we need to see the before and after numbers.
Martin
Travis Vitek wrote:
Since we don't have a string perf test that I could find, I wrote up a
quick and dirty one that just made many copies of the same string
repeatedly to exercise the atomic increment/decrement. The results show
a 3% performance penalty when using the newer atomic functions.
What's the status of this? We need to decide if we can put this
in 4.2 or defer it for 4.2.1. To put it in 4.2 we need to make
sure the new functions don't cause a performance regression in
basic_string. I.e., we need to see the before and after numbers.
Martin
Martin Sebor wrote:
One concern
One concern I have is performance. Does replacing the intrinsics with
out of line function call whose semantics the compiler has no idea
about have any impact on the runtime efficiency of the generated code?
I would be especially interested in real life scenarios such as the
usage of the atomic
