Re: Performance issue with COW strings?

[Dan Kegel <dank at kegel dot com>]

Paolo Carlini wrote:
> > So, I'd like to try benchmarking my app with & without COX strings.
> > Is there a patch handy for libstdc++
> > to replace COW strings with deep-copy strings?
> >
> > For the purpose of this test, I don't care about
> > compatibility, so it's ok if I can't mix code
> > compiled with this patch with code compiled with
> > a stock libstdc++.
>
> Excellent! We badly need this kind of hard data. Well, I could prepare a
> simple patch just disabling refererence-counting, would be simple.
> However, since you don't care about compatibility, I would ask you to
> wait just a couple of weeks: after some overdue branch maintainance, I
> will add to v7-branch a simple alternate base class for basic_string,
> avoiding ref-counting, selectable at configure time. Carrying out
> comparisons will be very easy and meaningful, because the full set of
> "utility" functions will remain the same, only the low-level bits will
> be different in the two configurations.

We're hot to trot right now, so we'd happily take a quick-and-dirty
interim patch.
We'll also gladly take the cleaner patch in a couple weeks.
Either or both, your call.

Thanks!
- Dan

--
Trying to get a job as a c++ developer?  See http://kegel.com/academy/getting-hired.html