Re: STDCXX-1056 [was: Re: STDCXX forks]
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 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. I got your patch, and have tested it. I have created two Experiments (that's what they are called) with the SunPro Performance Analyzer. Both experiments are targeting race conditions and deadlocks in the instrumented program, and both experiments are running the 22.locale.numpunct.mt program from the stdcxx test harness. One experiment is with your patch applied. The other experiment is with our (Solaris) patch applied. Here are the results: 1. with your patch applied: http://s247136804.onlinehome.us/22.locale.numpunct.mt.1.er.nts/ 2. with our (Solaris) patch applied: http://s247136804.onlinehome.us/22.locale.numpunct.mt.1.er.ts/ --Stefan -- Stefan Teleman KDE e.V. stefan.tele...@gmail.com
Re: STDCXX-1056 [was: Re: STDCXX forks]
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 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. I got your patch, and have tested it. Thanks, Stefan. I looked over it and it seems very similar to, and somewhat more detailed than gprof profiling output. I am going to update the incident shortly with a more detailed timing measurements on my side, in the form of a new attachment. Just FYI in case you still don't get notifications. Liviu
Re: STDCXX-1056 [was: Re: STDCXX forks]
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) 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. I got your patch, and have tested it. Thanks, Stefan. I looked over it and it seems very similar to, and somewhat more detailed than gprof profiling output. I am going to update the incident shortly with a more detailed timing measurements on my side, in the form of a new attachment. Just FYI in case you still don't get notifications. I have attached a new set of results to the incident, in the form of the archive: http://tinyurl.com/9drzg4e Please see the content for a description of the library changes (_numpunct.h file), the MT test program (t.cpp) and the results collected through two separate builds on two different machines (results.txt file). Thanks. Liviu
