public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/14563] new/delete much slower than malloc/free because of sjlj exceptions
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 11:03:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20041113110303.18591.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040312233606.14563.paulthomas2@wanadoo.fr>
------- Additional Comments From paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr 2004-11-13 11:02 -------
Subject: Re: new/delete much slower than malloc/free because of sjlj exceptions
> Here's a test case for you...
> -Ken
That's interesting....
Using your test case:
(i) gcc 3.2 20020927 ( prerelease) both versions take 0.62micro-sec/new
(ii) gcc 3.1.1 (cygming special) I get 2.1 and 0.66micro-sec/new
(iii) gcc 4.0.0 20041010 (experimental) I get 0.62 and 0.59micro-sec/new
This latter was a tad unexpected - I built in from a snapshot on one of the
German mirror sites. Does this imply that I have picked up Dwarf2 as a
default?
Going back to the beginning of this rather long thread, you will note that
it was building octave that first exposed this problem. I think that octave
is calling new too many times anyway, for certain types of code, and had
started hanging counters on an overloaded new operator. It would not be a
big deal to substitute your version and to compare the performance with
THROW defined or not.
Give me a few days, the build takes a few hours under Cygwin and I have some
concreting to do this weekend.... *sigh*
Regards
Paul Thomas
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14563
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-11-13 11:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 55+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-03-12 23:36 [Bug c++/14563] New: octave built under Cygwin very slow paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr
2004-03-13 7:24 ` [Bug c++/14563] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-03-13 8:06 ` paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr
2004-03-14 20:33 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-03-24 9:52 ` paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr
2004-03-24 15:57 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-03-24 16:38 ` paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr
2004-03-24 17:03 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-03-24 21:07 ` Ben dot Diedrich at noaa dot gov
2004-03-24 22:58 ` dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net
2004-03-25 6:40 ` paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr
2004-03-25 13:43 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-03-25 14:16 ` Ben dot Diedrich at noaa dot gov
2004-03-25 14:17 ` paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr
2004-03-25 14:26 ` paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr
2004-03-25 14:37 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-03-25 15:37 ` Ben dot Diedrich at noaa dot gov
2004-03-25 16:41 ` paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr
2004-03-28 21:19 ` paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr
2004-03-28 22:28 ` pkienzle at users dot sf dot net
2004-03-31 0:21 ` paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr
2004-04-02 17:43 ` paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr
2004-04-02 19:55 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-04-02 20:35 ` dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net
2004-04-02 20:41 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
2004-04-02 20:44 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-04-03 9:10 ` paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr
2004-04-03 17:19 ` epanelelytha at kellertimo dot de
2004-04-03 17:54 ` paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr
2004-04-03 18:00 ` epanelelytha at kellertimo dot de
2004-04-03 18:24 ` paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr
2004-07-12 14:50 ` [Bug libstdc++/14563] new/delete much slower than malloc/free pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-07-12 19:21 ` paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr
2004-07-12 20:55 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-07-13 4:17 ` paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr
2004-07-28 2:50 ` ron_hylton at hotmail dot com
2004-07-28 3:57 ` ron_hylton at hotmail dot com
2004-07-28 6:03 ` [Bug target/14563] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-07-29 4:23 ` ron_hylton at hotmail dot com
2004-08-08 9:24 ` paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr
2004-11-10 8:21 ` [Bug target/14563] [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] new/delete much slower than malloc/free because of sjlj exceptions giovannibajo at libero dot it
2004-11-10 8:21 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
2004-11-10 9:10 ` dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net
2004-11-10 12:46 ` [Bug target/14563] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-11-10 16:20 ` ron_hylton at hotmail dot com
2004-11-10 17:05 ` kjd at duda dot org
2004-11-13 11:03 ` paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr [this message]
2004-11-14 17:03 ` ken dot duda at gmail dot com
2004-11-14 18:04 ` paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr
2004-11-14 22:40 ` ken dot duda at gmail dot com
2005-05-12 14:53 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-05-12 14:54 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
[not found] <bug-14563-8128@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2007-06-14 3:21 ` dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net
[not found] <bug-14563-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2012-07-30 23:30 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-02-16 13:13 ` jackie.rosen at hushmail dot com
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20041113110303.18591.qmail@sourceware.org \
--to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).