Travis Vitek wrote:
Martin Sebor wrote:
Travis Vitek wrote:
If that is the case, then why would we possibly need this
same code in any of the other methods that are used to extend
the original string?
I don't think we do, really. I suspect the main reason why the
code is in all other
Martin Sebor wrote:
I'd like us to start to think about and putting together a list
of widely implemented core C++ features whose absence we currently
work around with the help of configuration tests and macros and
that are contributing in a significant way to the maintenance and
development
Marc Betz wrote:
I'd be pleased as punch to expand the zip file if I could figure out how
to do that. If there is a way on google pages, I haven't found it.
For whatever it's worth, I couldn't find a way to upload more than one
file at a time. With just a handful of files it's not a big deal
Martin Sebor wrote:
Hey everyone,
Marc Betz has been working on the improvements to the stdcxx
documentation outlined in STDCXX-391. Most of them are pretty
straightforward and can, IMO, be implemented without much
debate (although feedback is always appreciated :) but there
is one that I think
Hi all,
The attached simple patch speeds up push_back() nearly six times
relative to stdcxx 4.1.3 and makes it more than twice faster that
gcc's.
$ time ./push_back-stdcxx-patched 5
real0m2.800s
user0m1.676s
sys 0m1.084s
$ time ./push_back-stdcxx-4.1.3 5
real
Hi,
I have been working on a fix for STDCXX-493. The attached patch tries to
improve both the const_pointer and string overloads but makes no attempt
to do anything with the value_type overload. I was successful in making
the const_pointer overload run faster (about 6 times faster than in the
Hi,
I wrote the attached simple benchmark program to compare iostreams
and C stdio. Running it with -1000 and 1000 on the command
line on Linux 2.6.9 (GNU libc 2.5) I get the numbers below for each
of the implementations I tried when using /dev/null and /tmp/file
as the sink:
