[Bug libstdc++/50160] vectorbool comparison very slow (no overload)

2015-08-30 Thread 100adult at armyspy dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50160 --- Comment #43 from steve 100adult at armyspy dot com --- http://www.10ults.com/escorts-in-usa.html thanks for

[Bug libstdc++/50160] vectorbool comparison very slow (no overload)

2015-08-30 Thread 100adult at armyspy dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50160 steve 100adult at armyspy dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||100adult at armyspy

[Bug libstdc++/50160] vectorbool comparison very slow (no overload)

2014-05-21 Thread feritzpowell at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50160 Wellamjames feritzpowell at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||feritzpowell

[Bug libstdc++/50160] vectorbool comparison very slow (no overload)

2014-04-08 Thread elizbathjames at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50160 Elizbath Martin elizbathjames at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug libstdc++/50160] vectorbool comparison very slow (no overload)

2014-02-25 Thread margaretnemon at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50160 Jmaescraig margaretnemon at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||margaretnemon

[Bug libstdc++/50160] vectorbool comparison very slow (no overload)

2013-12-14 Thread tysonroy at yopmail dot fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50160 tysonroy tysonroy at yopmail dot fr changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tysonroy at yopmail

[Bug libstdc++/50160] vectorbool comparison very slow (no overload)

2013-05-16 Thread amandalionard at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50160 jandyu rata amandalionard at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||amandalionard

[Bug libstdc++/50160] vectorbool comparison very slow (no overload)

2013-04-30 Thread dparker1324 at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50160 brett davis dparker1324 at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug libstdc++/50160] vectorbool comparison very slow (no overload)

2012-12-21 Thread muhammadali.ca4 at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50160 --- Comment #35 from albcl111 muhammadali.ca4 at gmail dot com 2012-12-21 11:58:37 UTC --- Well said….positively enjoying each little bit of it and I have you bookmarked to check out new stuff you weblog airlinesplanet

[Bug libstdc++/50160] vectorbool comparison very slow (no overload)

2012-12-20 Thread muhammadali.ca4 at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50160 --- Comment #34 from albcl111 muhammadali.ca4 at gmail dot com 2012-12-21 06:46:07 UTC --- positively enjoying each little bit of it and I have you bookmarked to check out new stuff you weblog AIHL

[Bug libstdc++/50160] vectorbool comparison very slow (no overload)

2012-10-31 Thread muhammadali.ca4 at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50160 albcl111 muhammadali.ca4 at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug libstdc++/50160] vectorbool comparison very slow (no overload)

2012-03-29 Thread ptim034 at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50160 Tim Parker ptim034 at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ptim034 at gmail dot

[Bug libstdc++/50160] vectorbool comparison very slow (no overload)

2012-03-13 Thread DANISH8926536 at GMAIL dot COM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50160 DANISH DANISH8926536 at GMAIL dot COM changed: What|Removed |Added CC||DANISH8926536 at

[Bug libstdc++/50160] vectorbool comparison very slow (no overload)

2011-09-22 Thread marc.glisse at normalesup dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50160 --- Comment #27 from Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org 2011-09-22 09:25:44 UTC --- (In reply to comment #25) [builtins to reverse the bit order] I think a separate Bugzilla requesting as an enhancement such intrinsics would be

[Bug libstdc++/50160] vectorbool comparison very slow (no overload)

2011-09-22 Thread paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50160 --- Comment #28 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-09-22 09:49:18 UTC --- I think we should. Can you do that? Thanks!

[Bug libstdc++/50160] vectorbool comparison very slow (no overload)

2011-09-22 Thread marc.glisse at normalesup dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50160 --- Comment #29 from Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org 2011-09-22 10:29:07 UTC --- See Bug 50481 about bit-reversal builtins (and feel free to add details there).

[Bug libstdc++/50160] vectorbool comparison very slow (no overload)

2011-09-22 Thread de...@the-user.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50160 --- Comment #30 from Jonathan Schmidt-Dominé de...@the-user.org 2011-09-22 13:39:22 UTC --- Sorry, thank you for creating the feature-request.

[Bug libstdc++/50160] vectorbool comparison very slow (no overload)

2011-08-31 Thread joseph at codesourcery dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50160 --- Comment #26 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-08-31 15:23:56 UTC --- Various processors have an instruction to reverse the bit order in a word (ARMv6T2 and later have RBIT, for example, and C6X has BITR

[Bug libstdc++/50160] vectorbool comparison very slow (no overload)

2011-08-30 Thread paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50160 Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|vectorbool comparison |vectorbool

[Bug libstdc++/50160] vectorbool comparison very slow (no overload)

2011-08-30 Thread de...@the-user.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50160 --- Comment #14 from Jonathan Schmidt-Dominé de...@the-user.org 2011-08-30 23:25:25 UTC --- Created attachment 25143 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25143 bits/stl_vector.h patch moved operator== and operator inside class,

[Bug libstdc++/50160] vectorbool comparison very slow (no overload)

2011-08-30 Thread de...@the-user.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50160 --- Comment #15 from Jonathan Schmidt-Dominé de...@the-user.org 2011-08-30 23:30:00 UTC --- Created attachment 25144 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25144 b More efficient (non representative benchmark!) implementation of

[Bug libstdc++/50160] vectorbool comparison very slow (no overload)

2011-08-30 Thread de...@the-user.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50160 --- Comment #16 from Jonathan Schmidt-Dominé de...@the-user.org 2011-08-30 23:30:36 UTC --- Added basic patch…

[Bug libstdc++/50160] vectorbool comparison very slow (no overload)

2011-08-30 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50160 --- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-30 23:34:42 UTC --- (In reply to comment #14) moved operator== and operator inside class, because I want to overload them huh, why is that needed? it's not acceptable anyway,

[Bug libstdc++/50160] vectorbool comparison very slow (no overload)

2011-08-30 Thread de...@the-user.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50160 --- Comment #18 from Jonathan Schmidt-Dominé de...@the-user.org 2011-08-30 23:56:38 UTC --- (In reply to comment #17) (In reply to comment #14) moved operator== and operator inside class, because I want to overload them huh, why is that

[Bug libstdc++/50160] vectorbool comparison very slow (no overload)

2011-08-30 Thread paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50160 --- Comment #19 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-08-31 00:04:36 UTC --- I'm wondering if processing an unsigned long at a time wouldn't be a step in the right direction. Then, a compiler intrinsics would be the right place

[Bug libstdc++/50160] vectorbool comparison very slow (no overload)

2011-08-30 Thread paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50160 --- Comment #20 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-08-31 00:26:49 UTC --- Largely irrelevant here, but partial specialization of function templates simply does not exist. We have been talking about adding an overload like:

[Bug libstdc++/50160] vectorbool comparison very slow (no overload)

2011-08-30 Thread de...@the-user.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50160 --- Comment #21 from Jonathan Schmidt-Dominé de...@the-user.org 2011-08-31 00:30:58 UTC --- It would indeed be nice to have such a builtin function (8, 16, 32, 64 bit reversing), currently there is none in gcc, only bytewise reversing iirc.

[Bug libstdc++/50160] vectorbool comparison very slow (no overload)

2011-08-30 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50160 --- Comment #22 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-31 00:33:52 UTC --- Can't you do ~a ~b ?

[Bug libstdc++/50160] vectorbool comparison very slow (no overload)

2011-08-30 Thread de...@the-user.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50160 --- Comment #23 from Jonathan Schmidt-Dominé de...@the-user.org 2011-08-31 00:34:28 UTC --- @Paolo Okay, I am sometimes overcautious with function-templates, because I often had a lot of errors because of partial specialisation when it was

[Bug libstdc++/50160] vectorbool comparison very slow (no overload)

2011-08-30 Thread de...@the-user.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50160 --- Comment #24 from Jonathan Schmidt-Dominé de...@the-user.org 2011-08-31 00:39:57 UTC --- @Andrew Nope: 1001 0001 (lexicographically) 1001 0001 (as little-endian) 0110 1110 (as little-endian)

[Bug libstdc++/50160] vectorbool comparison very slow (no overload)

2011-08-30 Thread paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50160 --- Comment #25 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-08-31 00:56:42 UTC --- I think a separate Bugzilla requesting as an enhancement such intrinsics would be certainly appropriate. I'm sure other code could exploit those.