http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14563
Jackie Rosen jackie.rosen at hushmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14563
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
--- Comment #50 from dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net
2007-06-14 03:21 ---
(In reply to comment #37)
I think basically you are messed up untill Cygwin switches to dwarf2
exceptions.
This is now (=gcc 4.3) possible by adding --disable-sjlj-exceptions to
configure.
Can we
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14563
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12
14:54 ---
If you used the non throw new, it would become faster.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14563
--- Additional Comments From ken dot duda at gmail dot com 2004-11-14
17:03 ---
Subject: Re: new/delete much slower than malloc/free because of sjlj exceptions
Thanks, Paul. Let me know if I can help in any way. I appeneded the
output of gcc -v.
-Ken
--- Additional Comments From paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr 2004-11-14
18:04 ---
Subject: Re: new/delete much slower than malloc/free because
of sjlj exceptions
Ken,
Did you miss the question?
Paul
(iii) gcc 4.0.0 20041010 (experimental) I get 0.62 and 0.59micro-sec/new
This
--- Additional Comments From ken dot duda at gmail dot com 2004-11-14
22:40 ---
Subject: Re: new/delete much slower than malloc/free because of sjlj exceptions
Did you miss the question?
Umm, apparently I did.. the only thing I see in the bug log that looks
like a question is this:
--- Additional Comments From paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr 2004-11-13
11:02 ---
Subject: Re: new/delete much slower than malloc/free because of sjlj exceptions
Here's a test case for you...
-Ken
That's interesting
Using your test case:
(i) gcc 3.2 20020927 ( prerelease)
--
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression]|new/delete much slower than
|new/delete much slower than |malloc/free because of sjlj
--- Additional Comments From ron_hylton at hotmail dot com 2004-11-10
16:20 ---
(In reply to comment #40)
Ron, can you please attach your testcase that shows the problem to this PR?
This PR is a regression on cygwin because the speed is back with 3.2.
This is the test case I was
--- Additional Comments From kjd at duda dot org 2004-11-10 17:05 ---
(In reply to comment #40)
Ron, can you please attach your testcase that shows the problem to this PR?
This PR is a regression on cygwin because the speed is back with 3.2.
Here's a test case for you...
-Ken
12 matches
Mail list logo
