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: [Patch] Nathan's improvements to basic_string


> Nathan Myers <ncm-nospam@cantrip.org> writes:
> 
> > I did some testing on a 1.4 GHz Opteron, which generally seems
> > comparable to a 2.4GHz P4.
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 01:14:00PM -0700, Nathan Myers wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 09:01:05PM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> >> > Indeed, the improvements are easily measurable even on
> >> > single processor machines, like my P4-2400/linux.
> >> > ...
> >> > Current mainline:
> >> > -O0: 11.900u 0.000s 0:11.98 99.3%    0+0k 0+0io 204pf+0w
> >> > -O2: 10.420u 0.010s 0:10.51 99.2%    0+0k 0+0io 204pf+0w
> >> > 
> >> > Current + Nathan's:
> >> > -O0: 3.310u 0.000s 0:03.32 99.6%     0+0k 0+0io 201pf+0w
> >> > -O2: 0.350u 0.000s 0:00.35 100.0%    0+0k 0+0io 201pf+0w
> >
> > The first interesting result is that at -O1 it says 
> >
> > gnu/include/c++/3.4/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/bits/atomicity.h: In 
> >    function `int main()':
> > /amd/ncm/gnu/include/c++/3.4/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/bits/atomicity.h:43: error: inconsistent
> >       operand constraints in an `asm'
> 
> Honza, isn't this the bug in gcse that you're hunting down?
Yes, that looks like the same CSE problem.  I will try to give it
priority this afternoon so it gets fixed.

Honza
> 
> Andreas
> -- 
>  Andreas Jaeger, SuSE Linux AG, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj
>   GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F  FED1 389A 563C C272 A126



Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]