This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Some numbers... (Re: [v3] String: centralize exp growth policy)
- From: Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at suse dot de>
- To: Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, rittle at latour dot rsch dot comm dot mot dot com,libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 02:11:38 +0100
- Subject: Re: Some numbers... (Re: [v3] String: centralize exp growth policy)
- References: <401791E6.email@example.com> <4017B4EA.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
Agreed. A few more days of testing in mainline and I will!
Nice! So, yes.
6.540u 10.440s 0:17.66 96.1% 0+0k 0+0io 202pf+0w
0.110u 0.030s 0:00.14 100.0% 0+0k 0+0io 201pf+0w
So, probably we want to have this change for 3_4 too right?
P.S. That testcase is from Meyers, perhaps a not yet so widespread
idiom, but still something that Scott considers interesting (me too!)
and which can likely become more common in the near future.