Re: [PATCH] Use __rw_atomic_xxx() on Windows

Travis Vitek wrote: Doh! I should know better. Here is the results from a 12d build on the same hardware. Does this mean that there is almost no difference between the intrinsic functions and the out of line ones, or that the test is too simple to demonstrate them? I expect the greatest advant

RE: [PATCH] Use __rw_atomic_xxx() on Windows

Doh! I should know better. Here is the results from a 12d build on the same hardware. normal patched -- 1 threads -- 1 threads ms934 ms 1015 ms/op 0.5567 ms/op 0.6050 -- 2 threads -- 2 threads ms 6049

Re: [PATCH] Use __rw_atomic_xxx() on Windows

Farid Zaripov wrote: -Original Message- From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 5:49 AM To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use __rw_atomic_xxx() on Windows Travis Vitek wrote: Oh, yeah. that is the other thing that I did

RE: [PATCH] Use __rw_atomic_xxx() on Windows

> -Original Message- > From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 5:49 AM > To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use __rw_atomic_xxx() on Windows > > Travis Vitek wrote: > > Oh, yeah. that is the ot

Re: [PATCH] Use __rw_atomic_xxx() on Windows

Travis Vitek wrote: Since we don't have a string perf test that I could find, I wrote up a quick and dirty one that just made many copies of the same string repeatedly to exercise the atomic increment/decrement. The results show a 3% performance penalty when using the newer atomic functions. This

Re: [PATCH] Use __rw_atomic_xxx() on Windows

provide everything. Travis Martin Sebor wrote: Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use __rw_atomic_xxx() on Windows What's the status of this? We need to decide if we can put this in 4.2 or defer it for 4.2.1. To put it in 4.2 we need to make sure the new functions don't cause a performance regressio

RE: [PATCH] Use __rw_atomic_xxx() on Windows

Since we don't have a string perf test that I could find, I wrote up a quick and dirty one that just made many copies of the same string repeatedly to exercise the atomic increment/decrement. The results show a 3% performance penalty when using the newer atomic functions. This test was run with an

RE: [PATCH] Use __rw_atomic_xxx() on Windows

lunch. I'll report the results on that later. I've pasted the source for the bulk of my test below. If someone wants the entire thing, let me know and I'll provide everything. Travis Martin Sebor wrote: >Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use __rw_atomic_xxx() on Windows > >What's

Re: [PATCH] Use __rw_atomic_xxx() on Windows

What's the status of this? We need to decide if we can put this in 4.2 or defer it for 4.2.1. To put it in 4.2 we need to make sure the new functions don't cause a performance regression in basic_string. I.e., we need to see the before and after numbers. Martin Martin Sebor wrote: One concern I

Re: [PATCH] Use __rw_atomic_xxx() on Windows

One concern I have is performance. Does replacing the intrinsics with out of line function call whose semantics the compiler has no idea about have any impact on the runtime efficiency of the generated code? I would be especially interested in "real life" scenarios such as the usage of the atomic