https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #50 from François Dumont ---
This performance issue is a result of fixing:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41975
It resulted in many more modulo operations and so expensive float divisions.
I plan to commit an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #49 from Akim Demaille ---
It looks like this story is missing an end.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
Akim Demaille changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||akim.demaille at gmail dot com
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #44 from François Dumont fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-08
20:06:08 UTC ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Thu Nov 8 20:06:00 2012
New Revision: 193335
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193335
Log:
2012-11-08 François
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #45 from François Dumont fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-08
20:16:15 UTC ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Thu Nov 8 20:16:04 2012
New Revision: 193339
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193339
Log:
2012-11-08 François
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #46 from frs.dumont at gmail dot com 2012-11-08 20:21:15 UTC ---
Attached patch applied to trunk and 4.7 branch.
2012-11-08 François Dumont fdum...@gcc.gnu.org
PR libstdc++/54075
* include/bits/hashtable.h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #47 from frs.dumont at gmail dot com 2012-11-08 21:19:05 UTC ---
On 11/08/2012 03:25 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 11/08/2012 02:56 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On the other hand, the old-old code for rehash didn't use
_M_growth_factor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #40 from frs.dumont at gmail dot com 2012-11-07 22:02:56 UTC ---
Here is the patch to fix the redundant rehash/reserve issue.
2012-11-07 François Dumont fdum...@gcc.gnu.org
PR libstdc++/54075
* include/bits/hashtable.h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #41 from Jonathan Wakely jwakely.gcc at gmail dot com 2012-11-08
00:58:55 UTC ---
On 7 November 2012 22:02, François Dumont wrote:
Ok to commit ? If so, where ?
That patch is OK for trunk and 4.7, thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #42 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-11-08
01:56:15 UTC ---
On 11/08/2012 01:58 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 7 November 2012 22:02, François Dumont wrote:
Ok to commit ? If so, where ?
That patch is OK for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #43 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-11-08
02:26:12 UTC ---
On 11/08/2012 02:56 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On the other hand, the old-old code for rehash didn't use
_M_growth_factor in these
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #38 from François Dumont fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-06
21:22:48 UTC ---
Sure, I will. However I don't expect this problem to have any relation with the
performance subject of this PR.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #39 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-11-06
21:33:57 UTC ---
Ok thanks. I guess depending on the complexity of the fixes we can apply some
only to mainline first and reconsider the 4_7 branch later. Please
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
Lawrence tlawrence85 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tlawrence85 at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #37 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-11-06
00:58:37 UTC ---
Francois, can you please look further into this, possibly basing on the new
testcase? Thanks!
16 matches
Mail list logo
