[Bug libstdc++/42712] search_n/iterator.cc times out in parallel-mode

2010-01-19 Thread singler at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from singler at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-19 11:18 --- Subject: Bug 42712 Author: singler Date: Tue Jan 19 11:18:03 2010 New Revision: 156036 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=156036 Log: 2010-01-19 Johannes Singler sing...@kit.edu PR

[Bug libstdc++/42712] search_n/iterator.cc times out in parallel-mode

2010-01-19 Thread paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
--- Comment #6 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-19 12:08 --- Confirmed fixed, thanks! -- paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug libstdc++/42712] search_n/iterator.cc times out in parallel-mode

2010-01-18 Thread singler at kit dot edu
--- Comment #3 from singler at kit dot edu 2010-01-18 09:08 --- Paolo, you were right, it was just the fallback switch missing for this case. And since this specific test issues many thousands of calls with very small input, the overhead was very noticeable. Patch upcoming... --

[Bug libstdc++/42712] search_n/iterator.cc times out in parallel-mode

2010-01-18 Thread paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
--- Comment #4 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-18 11:21 --- Excellent. If possible, I would suggest removing my temporary hack from the testcase together with the parallel-mode patch. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42712

[Bug libstdc++/42712] search_n/iterator.cc times out in parallel-mode

2010-01-12 Thread singler at kit dot edu
--- Comment #1 from singler at kit dot edu 2010-01-12 17:43 --- Maybe rather an endless loop. -- singler at kit dot edu changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug libstdc++/42712] search_n/iterator.cc times out in parallel-mode

2010-01-12 Thread paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-12 18:00 --- My impression is that for some reason it's just slow, very slow: with TEST_DEPTH=10 it completes in a decent amount of time... -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42712