http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53263
--- Comment #22 from Paolo Carlini ---
Get in touch with Francois and work on further improvements with him.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53263
--- Comment #21 from dominik.stras...@onespin-solutions.com ---
How can I help ?
My goal is to run our entire regression test suite with STL debugging switched
on as this is great for quality assurance. Having fought several problems, this
now seem
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53263
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53263
--- Comment #19 from Paolo Carlini ---
I'm not going to work on this anyway, but really I'm not at all sure that
debug-mode is by design made for "bigger configurations", thus makes sense to
give high priority to this kind of issue. Unless of cour
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53263
dominik.stras...@onespin-solutions.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27332|0 |1
is obsol
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53263
--- Comment #17 from dominik.stras...@onespin-solutions.com ---
Created attachment 30350
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30350&action=edit
New testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53263
dominik.stras...@onespin-solutions.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Ve
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53263
--- Comment #15 from Paolo Carlini 2012-06-11
15:27:17 UTC ---
Too late for 4.7.1. Francois, can you please apply the patch to 4_7-branch as
soon as 4.7.1 is out, thus for 4.7.2? Thanks!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53263
--- Comment #14 from dominik.stras...@onespin-solutions.com 2012-06-11 15:05:43
UTC ---
Is there a chance to get this into 4.7.1 ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53263
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53263
--- Comment #12 from Paolo Carlini 2012-05-12
21:41:15 UTC ---
Francois, please double check that now you are ok, thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53263
--- Comment #11 from François Dumont 2012-05-11
19:21:38 UTC ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Fri May 11 19:21:31 2012
New Revision: 187414
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187414
Log:
2012-05-11 François Dumont
PR libstdc+
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53263
--- Comment #10 from François Dumont 2012-05-08
19:31:49 UTC ---
Ok, I will submit a patch tomorrow generalizing usage of __gnu_debug::__base in
debug macros.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53263
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|paolo.carlini at oracle dot |
|com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53263
--- Comment #8 from Pawel Sikora 2012-05-08 07:54:18
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Good, good, thanks Francois, anybody willing to benchmark the more limited
> change?
changing __glibcxx_check_heap_*pred* reduces timings for me from
~3.25 s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53263
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53263
--- Comment #6 from François Dumont 2012-05-07
20:37:57 UTC ---
I see 2 possible modifications for this problem.
The first one would be to avoid the numerous calls to _M_can_advance. In
priority_queue each time an element is pushed there is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53263
--- Comment #5 from Pawel Sikora 2012-05-07 13:34:43
UTC ---
callgrind shows that n*10e3 of pq.push() generates m*10e6 (m>n)
_M_can_advance() calls and growing fast :)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53263
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini 2012-05-07
12:54:36 UTC ---
I see, I see.
First, I notice that we don't have a specific debug/ version of it, thus you
are using the normal version + debug-mode std::vector and std::_heap
algorithms as imple
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53263
--- Comment #3 from dominik.stras...@onespin-solutions.com 2012-05-07 12:38:26
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I don't think we are making any promises in terms of debug-mode performance.
> Is
> it better for other debug-mode implementations d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53263
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53263
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org
Seve
22 matches
Mail list logo