On 9/16/12 11:21 AM, Liviu Nicoara wrote:
On 9/16/12 3:20 AM, Stefan Teleman wrote:
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Liviu Nicoara <[email protected]> wrote:
Now, to clear the confusion I created: the timing numbers I posted in the
attachment stdcxx-1056-timings.tgz to STDCXX-1066 (09/11/2012) showed that a
perfectly forwarding, no caching public interface (exemplified by a changed
grouping) performs better than the current implementation. It was that test
case that I hoped you could time, perhaps on SPARC, in both MT and ST
builds. The t.cpp program is for MT, s.cpp for ST.
I got your patch, and have tested it.
Thanks, Stefan. I looked over it and it seems very similar to, and somewhat more
detailed than gprof profiling output.
I am going to update the incident shortly with a more detailed timing
measurements on my side, in the form of a new attachment. Just FYI in case you
still don't get notifications.
I have attached a new set of results to the incident, in the form of the
archive:
http://tinyurl.com/9drzg4e
Please see the content for a description of the library changes (_numpunct.h
file), the MT test program (t.cpp) and the results collected through two
separate builds on two different machines (results.txt file).
Thanks.
Liviu
