[Bug libstdc++/51386] [4.7 Regression]: 23_containers/unordered_set/hash_policy/load_factor.cc execution timeout

2011-12-07 Thread paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51386 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug libstdc++/51386] [4.7 Regression]: 23_containers/unordered_set/hash_policy/load_factor.cc execution timeout

2011-12-07 Thread fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51386 --- Comment #8 from François Dumont 2011-12-07 19:47:08 UTC --- Author: fdumont Date: Wed Dec 7 19:47:03 2011 New Revision: 182085 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182085 Log: 2011-12-07 François Dumont PR libstdc++/

[Bug libstdc++/51386] [4.7 Regression]: 23_containers/unordered_set/hash_policy/load_factor.cc execution timeout

2011-12-05 Thread fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51386 --- Comment #7 from François Dumont 2011-12-05 20:55:59 UTC --- The problem is in the hash policy, while computing _M_prev_resize the max load factor is not always considered. The result is that when max load factor is lower than 1 the hashtable

[Bug libstdc++/51386] [4.7 Regression]: 23_containers/unordered_set/hash_policy/load_factor.cc execution timeout

2011-12-05 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51386 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0

[Bug libstdc++/51386] [4.7 Regression]: 23_containers/unordered_set/hash_policy/load_factor.cc execution timeout

2011-12-02 Thread hp at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51386 --- Comment #6 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2011-12-02 11:15:54 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) (My reply probably seems slightly odd due to the mid-air collision with comment #2.) > Oh, I see floating-point changes, has the patch perhaps increased

[Bug libstdc++/51386] [4.7 Regression]: 23_containers/unordered_set/hash_policy/load_factor.cc execution timeout

2011-12-02 Thread paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51386 --- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini 2011-12-02 11:12:20 UTC --- Note the huge slow down is entirely in the third block, for max_load_factor(.3), we must do something about it.

[Bug libstdc++/51386] [4.7 Regression]: 23_containers/unordered_set/hash_policy/load_factor.cc execution timeout

2011-12-02 Thread paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51386 --- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini 2011-12-02 11:10:36 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #1) > > Hans-Peter, can it be a memory issue? The recent changes imply that more > > memory > > is used by these data structures, and t

[Bug libstdc++/51386] [4.7 Regression]: 23_containers/unordered_set/hash_policy/load_factor.cc execution timeout

2011-12-02 Thread hp at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51386 --- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2011-12-02 11:07:20 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) > Hans-Peter, can it be a memory issue? The recent changes imply that more > memory > is used by these data structures, and that is largely unavoidable,

[Bug libstdc++/51386] [4.7 Regression]: 23_containers/unordered_set/hash_policy/load_factor.cc execution timeout

2011-12-02 Thread paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51386 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug libstdc++/51386] [4.7 Regression]: 23_containers/unordered_set/hash_policy/load_factor.cc execution timeout

2011-12-02 Thread paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51386 --- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini 2011-12-02 10:12:26 UTC --- Francois, please take a look asap. Hans-Peter, can it be a memory issue? The recent changes imply that more memory is used by these data structures, and that is largely unavoidable, t