On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 at 09:25, Daniel Krügler <daniel.krueg...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Am Do., 17. Nov. 2022 um 10:07 Uhr schrieb Jonathan Wakely
> <jwakely....@gmail.com>:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 17 Nov 2022, 06:30 Daniel Krügler via Libstdc++, <
> libstd...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Am Mi., 16. Nov. 2022 um 22:00 Uhr schrieb Jonathan Wakely via
> >> Libstdc++ <libstd...@gcc.gnu.org>:
> >> >
> >> > Tested x86_64-linux. Pushed to trunk.
> >> >
> >> > -- >8 --
> >> >
> >> > We can use an array instead of a std::vector, and we can avoid the
> >> > binary search for the common case of a time point after the most
> recent
> >> > leap second. On one system where I tested this, utc_clock::now() now
> >> > takes about 16ns instead of 31ns.
> >> >
> >> > libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
> >> >
> >> > * include/std/chrono (get_leap_second_info): Optimize.
> >> > ---
> >> > libstdc++-v3/include/std/chrono | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> >> > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/include/std/chrono
> b/libstdc++-v3/include/std/chrono
> >> > index 90b73f8198e..2468023f6c5 100644
> >> > --- a/libstdc++-v3/include/std/chrono
> >> > +++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/std/chrono
> >> > @@ -2747,9 +2747,7 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION
> >> > {
> >> > if constexpr (is_same_v<_Duration, seconds>)
> >> > {
> >> > - // TODO move this function into the library and get leaps
> from tzdb.
> >> > - vector<seconds::rep> __leaps
> >> > - {
> >> > + const seconds::rep __leaps[] {
> >> > 78796800, // 1 Jul 1972
> >> > 94694400, // 1 Jan 1973
> >> > 126230400, // 1 Jan 1974
> >> > @@ -2778,12 +2776,31 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION
> >> > 1435708800, // 1 Jul 2015
> >> > 1483228800, // 1 Jan 2017
> >> > };
> >> > + // The list above is known to be valid until 2023-06-28
> 00:00:00 UTC
> >> > + const seconds::rep __expires = 1687910400;
> >> > + const seconds::rep __s = __ut.time_since_epoch().count();
> >> >
> >> > - auto __s = __ut.time_since_epoch().count();
> >> > - auto __pos = std::upper_bound(__leaps.begin(),
> __leaps.end(), __s);
> >> > + const seconds::rep* __first = std::begin(__leaps);
> >> > + const seconds::rep* __last = std::end(__leaps);
> >> > +
> >> > + if (__s > __expires)
> >> > + {
> >> > + // TODO: use updated leap_seconds from tzdb
> >> > +#if 0
> >> > + auto __db = get_tzdb_list().begin();
> >> > + __first = __db->leap_seconds.data();
> >> > + __last = __first + __db->leap_seconds.size();
> >> > +#endif
> >> > + }
> >> > +
> >> > + // Don't bother searching the list if we're after the
> last one.
> >> > + if (__s > __last[-1])
> >> > + return { false, seconds(__last - __first) };
> >> > +
> >> > + auto __pos = std::upper_bound(__first, __last, __s);
> >> > return {
> >> > - __pos != __leaps.begin() && __pos[-1] == __s,
> >> > - seconds{__pos - __leaps.begin()}
> >> > + __pos != begin(__leaps) && __pos[-1] == __s,
> >>
> >> The inconsistency between usage of std::begin versus begin here seems
> >> odd and I'm wondering why instead of "begin(__leaps)" the above
> >> introduced "__first" variable is not used instead.
> >
> >
> > Because this code is going to be changed again soon, this is a partial
> merge from a local branch with the TODO fixed. Yes, it's inconsistent, but
> it works correctly and it's not my priority right now :-)
>
> What about the suggestion to use the already existing "__first"
> variable instead of the begin call?
>
It's an array, the begin call is free.
