> -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Sebor > Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 8:39 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: stdcxx stringstreams 2x slower than gcc > > Eric Lemings wrote: > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Martin Sebor > >> Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 9:43 PM > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: stdcxx stringstreams 2x slower than gcc > >> > > ... > >> I think the difference between 8D and 12D is due to the mutex > >> in stingstream. Even though there's no locking the mutex still > >> is initialized and that's what I suspect accounts for the slow > >> runtimes. We need an issue to remind us to fix it as soon as > >> binary compatibility permits it. > > > > I conclude from this that the mutex is exposed in the public ABI? > > If so, why? I would think the mutex would not need be a part of > > the public ABI. > > You're right, it shouldn't be but, regretfully, it is. Hence > STDCXX-914: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-914 > (With C++ templates it can be a challenge to avoid exposing > implementation details like this)
Challenging but not impossible? ;) Brad.
