On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Zachary Turner wrote:
> I'll try to come up with a sample tomorrow, but the surrounding code is
> pretty complex, so I'm not 100% sure it will still exhibit the same pattern
> if I do the same thing in a stripped application.
>
> As an alternative to not clearing th
I'll try to come up with a sample tomorrow, but the surrounding code is
pretty complex, so I'm not 100% sure it will still exhibit the same pattern
if I do the same thing in a stripped application.
As an alternative to not clearing the items before I put them back in the
list, would there be any p
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Zachary Turner wrote:
> I get somewhat better results with that flag. I built protobuf with
> profiling enabled and I'm a little suspicious that the information is 100%
> accurate, but it seems like std::string::clear() takes up the most time.
> But the percentage
I get somewhat better results with that flag. I built protobuf with
profiling enabled and I'm a little suspicious that the information is 100%
accurate, but it seems like std::string::clear() takes up the most time.
But the percentages don't match up to what I calculate, so I'm not sure
where the
Add this to your .proto file:
option optimize_for = SPEED;
Does it help?
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Zachary Turner wrote:
>
> I'll give it a try. I haven't built the protobuf libraries with
> instrumenting support or else I'd already know, but I should be able
> to get it working.
>
> On
I'll give it a try. I haven't built the protobuf libraries with
instrumenting support or else I'd already know, but I should be able
to get it working.
On Mar 5, 5:20 pm, Kenton Varda wrote:
> Wow, that's interesting. I don't know why it would do that. Can you look
> deeper into your profiles
Wow, that's interesting. I don't know why it would do that. Can you look
deeper into your profiles and see what part of Clear() is taking so long?
For example, is it spending the time clearing STL strings?
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Zachary Turner wrote:
>
> I have a fairly old version of
