This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug libstdc++/58437] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] Sorting value in reverse order is much slower compare to gcc44
- From: "chris at bubblescope dot net" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 14:46:36 +0000
- Subject: [Bug libstdc++/58437] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] Sorting value in reverse order is much slower compare to gcc44
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-58437-4 at http dot gcc dot gnu dot org/bugzilla/>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58437
--- Comment #20 from Chris Jefferson <chris at bubblescope dot net> ---
Created attachment 30867
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30867&action=edit
Performance tests for sort
This is some performance tests for performance checking. Sorry for tar rather
than patch, just pop them in performance/25_algorithms.
I decided to check stable_sort and heap_sort as well as just sort, just to
check nothing else got broken at the same time (turns out, nothing else did).
Not sure exactly what the appropriate memory / time tradeoffs are for the
performance test suite, so any comments welcome.