This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [v3] Fix management of non empty hash functor
- From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- To: François Dumont <frs dot dumont at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>, "libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org" <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 21:12:35 +0000
- Subject: Re: [v3] Fix management of non empty hash functor
- References: <50CA498A.2070902@gmail.com> <50E6BA2C.2060109@oracle.com> <50EF2C6F.3050609@gmail.com> <CAH6eHdSDudjKVi=DeLPwE5X1_sp5-G7g2Qe9xq5obQ+V=ntM_A@mail.gmail.com> <5106E8C8.10205@gmail.com>
On 28 January 2013 21:08, François Dumont wrote:
>>
>> (Do the performance benchmarks actually tell us anything useful?
>> When I run them I get such varying results it doesn't seem to be
>> reliable.)
>
> Last time I run the tests it was showing when not caching was better than
> caching.
Yes, I've definitely seen real advantage from not caching (but that
was in my own tests, not the performance testsuite.)
> I have even added a bench on the unordered containers directly to
> show what are the performance of default behavior. For the moment, for the
> Foo type used in 54075.cc, the default behavior is not the best one. But I
> will submit a patch for that soon with a hash traits telling if it is fast
> or not, like we already talk about.
Great, thanks.