From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9551 invoked by alias); 26 Jan 2005 15:41:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 9467 invoked by uid 48); 26 Jan 2005 15:41:07 -0000 Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 15:41:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050126154107.9466.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "joerg dot richter at pdv-fs dot de" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20050126142651.19642.joerg.richter@pdv-fs.de> References: <20050126142651.19642.joerg.richter@pdv-fs.de> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libstdc++/19642] streaming doubles is very slow compared to sprintf X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-01/txt/msg03872.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From joerg dot richter at pdv-fs dot de 2005-01-26 15:41 ------- > ;) No, I mean *relative* percentages: setlocal in your profile is on top, higher > than __convert_from_v and everything else. I'm asking: is consuming 1%, 10%, or > 99% of the total runtime? Doesn't a function that is on 99% of all call stacks automatically consume 99% of the runtime? Ok, the time can also be spend in the childs like here in __issetuid, but this is an implementation detail of setlocale, isn't it? > In this case, can you possibly check whether, for some reason, snprintf is > slower than sprintf, on AIX? I rewrote the original program to use snprintf and got the same time as with sprintf. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19642