http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51386
--- Comment #8 from François Dumont fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-07
19:47:08 UTC ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Wed Dec 7 19:47:03 2011
New Revision: 182085
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=182085
Log:
2011-12-07 François
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51386
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51386
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51386
--- Comment #7 from François Dumont fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-05
20:55:59 UTC ---
The problem is in the hash policy, while computing _M_prev_resize the max load
factor is not always considered. The result is that when max load factor is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51386
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-12-02
10:12:26 UTC ---
Francois, please take a look asap.
Hans-Peter, can it be a memory issue? The recent changes imply that more memory
is used by these data structures,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51386
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51386
--- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-02
11:07:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Hans-Peter, can it be a memory issue? The recent changes imply that more
memory
is used by these data structures, and that is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51386
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-12-02
11:10:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
(In reply to comment #1)
Hans-Peter, can it be a memory issue? The recent changes imply that more
memory
is used by
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51386
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-12-02
11:12:20 UTC ---
Note the huge slow down is entirely in the third block, for
max_load_factor(.3), we must do something about it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51386
--- Comment #6 from Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-02
11:15:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
(My reply probably seems slightly odd due to the mid-air collision with comment
#2.)
Oh, I see floating-point changes, has the
10 matches
Mail list logo
