[Bug libstdc++/46659] std::list iterator debugging (_GLIBCXX_DEBUG) is much slower than stlport's one.

2010-12-09 Thread fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46659 --- Comment #9 from François Dumont 2010-12-09 21:05:22 UTC --- testsuite performance suite already show very good results but this test is rather explicit too. What will perhaps surprise you is that the only optimization that can explain this di

[Bug libstdc++/46659] std::list iterator debugging (_GLIBCXX_DEBUG) is much slower than stlport's one.

2010-12-07 Thread paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46659 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0

[Bug libstdc++/46659] std::list iterator debugging (_GLIBCXX_DEBUG) is much slower than stlport's one.

2010-12-07 Thread pluto at agmk dot net
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46659 Pawel Sikora changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug libstdc++/46659] std::list iterator debugging (_GLIBCXX_DEBUG) is much slower than stlport's one.

2010-12-07 Thread paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46659 --- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini 2010-12-07 22:10:39 UTC --- Excellent. If you can confirm that the improvement holds true also for a smaller number of elements let's close this as fixed for 4.6.0.

[Bug libstdc++/46659] std::list iterator debugging (_GLIBCXX_DEBUG) is much slower than stlport's one.

2010-12-07 Thread pluto at agmk dot net
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46659 --- Comment #6 from Pawel Sikora 2010-12-07 22:05:15 UTC --- (In reply to comment #5) > With current mainline 20 elements finishes in 0.1s on my x86_64 system, > which is only 5 times slower than non-debug mode. > > That's compared with 5m36

[Bug libstdc++/46659] std::list iterator debugging (_GLIBCXX_DEBUG) is much slower than stlport's one.

2010-12-07 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46659 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-12-07 21:40:38 UTC --- With current mainline 20 elements finishes in 0.1s on my x86_64 system, which is only 5 times slower than non-debug mode. That's compared with 5m36s with 4.5's debug mode. I th

[Bug libstdc++/46659] std::list iterator debugging (_GLIBCXX_DEBUG) is much slower than stlport's one.

2010-12-07 Thread paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46659 --- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini 2010-12-07 11:06:11 UTC --- Francois, do you have an opinion about this?

[Bug libstdc++/46659] std::list iterator debugging (_GLIBCXX_DEBUG) is much slower than stlport's one.

2010-11-25 Thread pluto at agmk dot net
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46659 --- Comment #3 from Pawel Sikora 2010-11-25 18:40:28 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) > Let's add Francois in CC, he knows STLPort pretty well. And somebody should > profile this difference, redo the tests for current mainline (which already > h

[Bug libstdc++/46659] std::list iterator debugging (_GLIBCXX_DEBUG) is much slower than stlport's one.

2010-11-25 Thread paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46659 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org Seve

[Bug libstdc++/46659] std::list iterator debugging (_GLIBCXX_DEBUG) is much slower than stlport's one.

2010-11-25 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46659 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-11-25 15:45:58 UTC --- the changes in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2010-11/msg00131.html might help