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 10/26/2012 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:
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
te
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.
T
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 10/4/12 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 meantim
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 10/03/2012 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 sm
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 t
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
diff
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 ch
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
To: Martin Sebor
On 9/30/12 6:18 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
I see you did a 64-bit build while I did a 32
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
To: Martin Sebor
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
the attachment.
Original Message --------
Subject: Re: STDCXX-1071 numpunct facet defect
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2012 12:09:10 -0600
From: Martin Sebor
To: Liviu Nicoara
On 9/27/12 8:27 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Here are my timings for library-reduction.cpp when compiled
GCC 4.5.3 on Solaris 10 (4 SPARC
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
To: Liviu Nicoara
On 9/27/12 8:27 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Here are my timings
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
To: Liviu Nicoara
On 09/27/2012 06:36 PM, Liviu Nicoara wrote:
On 9/27/12 8:27 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 09/27/2012 06
[Sending to dev after accidentally replying just to Liviu]
On 09/30/2012 12:09 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 09/27/2012 06:36 PM, Liviu Nicoara wrote:
On 9/27/12 8:27 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 09/27/2012 06:41 AM, Liviu Nicoara wrote:
On 09/26/12 20:12, Liviu Nicoara wrote:
I have created STDC
-
From: Liviu Nicoara [mailto:nikko...@hates.ms]
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 3:52 AM
To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
Subject: Re: STDCXX-1071 numpunct facet defect
I thought I replied but I see no trace of my post:
On 09/27/12 20:27, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 09/27/2012 06:41 AM, Liviu Nicoara wrote
On 09/28/12 11:01, Travis Vitek wrote:
Only major versions can break binary. The versioning policy for stdcxx can be
found here..
http://stdcxx.apache.org/versions.html
Thanks, that clarifies things.
Liviu
: STDCXX-1071 numpunct facet defect
I thought I replied but I see no trace of my post:
On 09/27/12 20:27, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 09/27/2012 06:41 AM, Liviu Nicoara wrote:
>> On 09/26/12 20:12, Liviu Nicoara wrote:
>>> I have created STDCXX-1071 and linked to STDCXX-1056. [...]
&g
I thought I replied but I see no trace of my post:
On 09/27/12 20:27, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 09/27/2012 06:41 AM, Liviu Nicoara wrote:
On 09/26/12 20:12, Liviu Nicoara wrote:
I have created STDCXX-1071 and linked to STDCXX-1056. [...]
I am open to all questions, the more the better. Most of m
On 09/27/2012 06:41 AM, Liviu Nicoara wrote:
On 09/26/12 20:12, Liviu Nicoara wrote:
I have created STDCXX-1071 and linked to STDCXX-1056. [...]
I am open to all questions, the more the better. Most of my opinions
have been expressed earlier, but please ask if you want to know more.
I am att
On 09/26/12 20:12, Liviu Nicoara wrote:
I have created STDCXX-1071 and linked to STDCXX-1056. [...]
I am open to all questions, the more the better. Most of my opinions have been
expressed earlier, but please ask if you want to know more.
I am attaching here the proposed (4.3.x) patch and th
23 matches
Mail list logo
