This is the mail archive of the libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the libstdc++ project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Hunting for performance regressions in libstdc++

Howard Hinnant wrote:

> [snip]
>
> Note that the behavior of "adjacent" semantics is allowed but not
> required by the proposed wording in N1780.  This allows a nice
> migration path from "after" semantics.  You can implement "before"
> semantics today but still check "after" and remain backwards
> compatible indefinitely.

Ok, I think my only remaining doubt is the following (don't know if you
want to help to clarify this point, not really part of DR 233 ;) AFAICS,
in case of map/set things seem less efficient, the worst case being *3*
comparisons. That is, x < *p, then, if it fails, *p < x and x < *(p +
1). Or?!?

Thanks again,
Paolo.
Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]