* [Bug libstdc++/51078] [PATCH] performance improvement of std::count algorithm
2011-11-10 11:40 [Bug libstdc++/51078] New: [PATCH] performance improvement of std::count algorithm grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com
@ 2011-11-10 11:41 ` grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com
2011-11-10 11:42 ` grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com
` (18 subsequent siblings)
19 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com @ 2011-11-10 11:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51078
--- Comment #1 from Grygoriy Fuchedzhy <grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com> 2011-11-10 11:39:08 UTC ---
Created attachment 25779
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25779
performance test
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/51078] [PATCH] performance improvement of std::count algorithm
2011-11-10 11:40 [Bug libstdc++/51078] New: [PATCH] performance improvement of std::count algorithm grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com
2011-11-10 11:41 ` [Bug libstdc++/51078] " grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com
@ 2011-11-10 11:42 ` grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com
2011-11-10 11:43 ` grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com
` (17 subsequent siblings)
19 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com @ 2011-11-10 11:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51078
--- Comment #2 from Grygoriy Fuchedzhy <grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com> 2011-11-10 11:40:20 UTC ---
Created attachment 25780
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25780
output of performance test
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/51078] [PATCH] performance improvement of std::count algorithm
2011-11-10 11:40 [Bug libstdc++/51078] New: [PATCH] performance improvement of std::count algorithm grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com
2011-11-10 11:41 ` [Bug libstdc++/51078] " grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com
2011-11-10 11:42 ` grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com
@ 2011-11-10 11:43 ` grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com
2011-11-10 11:56 ` grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com
` (16 subsequent siblings)
19 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com @ 2011-11-10 11:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51078
--- Comment #3 from Grygoriy Fuchedzhy <grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com> 2011-11-10 11:41:14 UTC ---
Created attachment 25781
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25781
gnuplot script to plot test data
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/51078] [PATCH] performance improvement of std::count algorithm
2011-11-10 11:40 [Bug libstdc++/51078] New: [PATCH] performance improvement of std::count algorithm grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2011-11-10 11:43 ` grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com
@ 2011-11-10 11:56 ` grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com
2011-11-10 12:01 ` grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com
` (15 subsequent siblings)
19 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com @ 2011-11-10 11:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51078
--- Comment #4 from Grygoriy Fuchedzhy <grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com> 2011-11-10 11:42:23 UTC ---
Created attachment 25782
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25782
plot of performance boost against container size
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/51078] [PATCH] performance improvement of std::count algorithm
2011-11-10 11:40 [Bug libstdc++/51078] New: [PATCH] performance improvement of std::count algorithm grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2011-11-10 11:56 ` grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com
@ 2011-11-10 12:01 ` grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com
2011-11-10 12:05 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (14 subsequent siblings)
19 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com @ 2011-11-10 12:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51078
--- Comment #5 from Grygoriy Fuchedzhy <grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com> 2011-11-10 11:43:00 UTC ---
Created attachment 25783
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25783
plot of performance boost against container size, logarithmic by size
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/51078] [PATCH] performance improvement of std::count algorithm
2011-11-10 11:40 [Bug libstdc++/51078] New: [PATCH] performance improvement of std::count algorithm grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2011-11-10 12:01 ` grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com
@ 2011-11-10 12:05 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-11-10 14:23 ` grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com
` (13 subsequent siblings)
19 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-11-10 12:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51078
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-11-10 11:55:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Created attachment 25783 [details]
> plot of performance boost against container size, logarithmic by size
This is the more useful one - thanks.
Before looking at your patch, do you have a copyright assignment in place for
contributing to GCC?
For details see http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/51078] [PATCH] performance improvement of std::count algorithm
2011-11-10 11:40 [Bug libstdc++/51078] New: [PATCH] performance improvement of std::count algorithm grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2011-11-10 12:05 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-11-10 14:23 ` grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com
2011-11-10 17:35 ` marc.glisse at normalesup dot org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
19 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com @ 2011-11-10 14:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51078
--- Comment #7 from Grygoriy Fuchedzhy <grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com> 2011-11-10 14:06:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Before looking at your patch, do you have a copyright assignment in place for
> contributing to GCC?
No, but I'm ready to sign it. What should I do now? I've found this
instructions: http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CopyrightAssignment
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/51078] [PATCH] performance improvement of std::count algorithm
2011-11-10 11:40 [Bug libstdc++/51078] New: [PATCH] performance improvement of std::count algorithm grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2011-11-10 14:23 ` grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com
@ 2011-11-10 17:35 ` marc.glisse at normalesup dot org
2011-11-10 18:11 ` grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com
` (11 subsequent siblings)
19 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: marc.glisse at normalesup dot org @ 2011-11-10 17:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51078
--- Comment #8 from Marc Glisse <marc.glisse at normalesup dot org> 2011-11-10 17:28:46 UTC ---
Hello,
I can't seem to find a mention of the compiler flags you used for your
benchmarks, what are they? -Ofast -funroll-loops?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/51078] [PATCH] performance improvement of std::count algorithm
2011-11-10 11:40 [Bug libstdc++/51078] New: [PATCH] performance improvement of std::count algorithm grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2011-11-10 17:35 ` marc.glisse at normalesup dot org
@ 2011-11-10 18:11 ` grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com
2011-11-10 18:31 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
` (10 subsequent siblings)
19 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com @ 2011-11-10 18:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51078
--- Comment #9 from Grygoriy Fuchedzhy <grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com> 2011-11-10 18:08:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> I can't seem to find a mention of the compiler flags you used for your
> benchmarks, what are they? -Ofast -funroll-loops?
-march=native -O2
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/51078] [PATCH] performance improvement of std::count algorithm
2011-11-10 11:40 [Bug libstdc++/51078] New: [PATCH] performance improvement of std::count algorithm grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2011-11-10 18:11 ` grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com
@ 2011-11-10 18:31 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2011-11-11 22:36 ` grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com
` (9 subsequent siblings)
19 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: paolo.carlini at oracle dot com @ 2011-11-10 18:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51078
--- Comment #10 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> 2011-11-10 18:20:03 UTC ---
As a general observation about this kind of road to performance improvement:
before manually unrolling loops, I think we should **carefully** analyze why
the loop unrolling optimizations in the compiler cannot be simply relied on.
Indeed, I know we have got already few manually unrolled loops in <algorithm>
but those are *very* old, essentially dating back to the HP / Sgi times: I
would not be suprised at all to learn that vs the current Gcc, maybe further
tweaked with the help of the compiler people, they are actually not benefiting
anymore. At minimum, we should reassess how *much* to unroll for today's cpus,
or whether the optimal solution now would be loop optimization supported by
hints in the code.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/51078] [PATCH] performance improvement of std::count algorithm
2011-11-10 11:40 [Bug libstdc++/51078] New: [PATCH] performance improvement of std::count algorithm grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2011-11-10 18:31 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
@ 2011-11-11 22:36 ` grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com
2011-11-11 22:37 ` grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com
` (8 subsequent siblings)
19 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com @ 2011-11-11 22:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51078
--- Comment #11 from Grygoriy Fuchedzhy <grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com> 2011-11-11 21:53:50 UTC ---
I've tried different optimization options:
1. -march=native -O2,
2. -march=native -O2 -funroll-loops,
3. -march=native -O2 -funroll-all-loops,
4. -march=native -O3,
5. -march=native -O3 -funroll-loops,
6. -march=native -O3 -funroll-all-loops
And got following list of optimizations from faster to slower: 5, 6, 1, 4, 2, 3
You can see that code with automatic loop unrolling sometimes performs worse
than code without one. 2 and 3 optimizations gives 1.5 times worse result
compared to 1 variant.
5 and 6 variant is better then 1, but still manual loop unrolling performs
better(more than 25%).
Also I've tried changing number of unrolled iteration from 2 to 8 and got best
performance for 4 and 5 on core2 cpu.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/51078] [PATCH] performance improvement of std::count algorithm
2011-11-10 11:40 [Bug libstdc++/51078] New: [PATCH] performance improvement of std::count algorithm grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2011-11-11 22:36 ` grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com
@ 2011-11-11 22:37 ` grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com
2011-11-11 23:36 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
` (7 subsequent siblings)
19 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com @ 2011-11-11 22:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51078
Grygoriy Fuchedzhy <grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment #25779|0 |1
is obsolete| |
--- Comment #12 from Grygoriy Fuchedzhy <grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com> 2011-11-11 21:57:06 UTC ---
Created attachment 25798
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25798
performance test
Minor fix to implement patch functionality exactly. Doesn't affect performance.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/51078] [PATCH] performance improvement of std::count algorithm
2011-11-10 11:40 [Bug libstdc++/51078] New: [PATCH] performance improvement of std::count algorithm grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2011-11-11 22:37 ` grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com
@ 2011-11-11 23:36 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2011-11-12 12:12 ` grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com
` (6 subsequent siblings)
19 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: paolo.carlini at oracle dot com @ 2011-11-11 23:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51078
--- Comment #13 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> 2011-11-11 23:03:38 UTC ---
I would say, the next step, is analyzing why: std::count seems a very simple
algorithm, no aliasing issues for example, compiler should be able to unroll,
maybe vectorize too, and everything else, without having to fiddle with the
code in an ad-hoc way.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/51078] [PATCH] performance improvement of std::count algorithm
2011-11-10 11:40 [Bug libstdc++/51078] New: [PATCH] performance improvement of std::count algorithm grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2011-11-11 23:36 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
@ 2011-11-12 12:12 ` grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com
2011-11-12 12:14 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
` (5 subsequent siblings)
19 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com @ 2011-11-12 12:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51078
--- Comment #14 from Grygoriy Fuchedzhy <grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com> 2011-11-12 10:09:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> I would say, the next step, is analyzing why: std::count seems a very simple
> algorithm, no aliasing issues for example, compiler should be able to unroll,
> maybe vectorize too, and everything else, without having to fiddle with the
> code in an ad-hoc way.
I completely agree that analizing why is necessary, but this probably should be
done in separate bug?(should I open it?) As regarding current bug: it seems
that automatic loop unrolling is far from being considered "stable" or
"recommended" optimization, so this patch may improve performance until this
optimization become commonly used. By the way, manually unrolled std::find, one
of old algorithms you mentioned also performs significantly better than version
without loop unrolling.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/51078] [PATCH] performance improvement of std::count algorithm
2011-11-10 11:40 [Bug libstdc++/51078] New: [PATCH] performance improvement of std::count algorithm grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2011-11-12 12:12 ` grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com
@ 2011-11-12 12:14 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2011-11-12 12:22 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
` (4 subsequent siblings)
19 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: paolo.carlini at oracle dot com @ 2011-11-12 12:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51078
--- Comment #15 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> 2011-11-12 11:12:36 UTC ---
Actually, patches do not belong to Bugzilla at all thus this issue should have
been posted and discussed only on the mailing list. In any case, we are not
going to add to the library manually unrolled loops for such simple algorithms
until we understand why the loops aren't satisfactorily unrolled, and
vectorized, and all it's profitable, by the compiler.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/51078] [PATCH] performance improvement of std::count algorithm
2011-11-10 11:40 [Bug libstdc++/51078] New: [PATCH] performance improvement of std::count algorithm grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2011-11-12 12:14 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
@ 2011-11-12 12:22 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2011-11-12 12:32 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
` (3 subsequent siblings)
19 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: paolo.carlini at oracle dot com @ 2011-11-12 12:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51078
--- Comment #16 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> 2011-11-12 12:11:48 UTC ---
By the way, without having investigated at all what the optimizers are actually
doing, in mainline, on an i7-980X I have here at hand I don't see the manual
unrolling providing any advantage over -funroll-loops: I'm using g++ -Ofast
-march=native -funroll-loops test.cc. Numbers attached.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/51078] [PATCH] performance improvement of std::count algorithm
2011-11-10 11:40 [Bug libstdc++/51078] New: [PATCH] performance improvement of std::count algorithm grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2011-11-12 12:22 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
@ 2011-11-12 12:32 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2011-11-12 13:12 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
` (2 subsequent siblings)
19 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: paolo.carlini at oracle dot com @ 2011-11-12 12:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51078
--- Comment #17 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> 2011-11-12 12:14:06 UTC ---
Created attachment 25804
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25804
Some numbers: i7-980X, mainline, -Ofast -funroll-loops, -march=native
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/51078] [PATCH] performance improvement of std::count algorithm
2011-11-10 11:40 [Bug libstdc++/51078] New: [PATCH] performance improvement of std::count algorithm grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2011-11-12 12:32 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
@ 2011-11-12 13:12 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2011-11-12 13:21 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2011-11-15 10:58 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
19 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: paolo.carlini at oracle dot com @ 2011-11-12 13:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51078
--- Comment #18 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> 2011-11-12 12:32:22 UTC ---
Created attachment 25805
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25805
Same, without -funroll-loops
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/51078] [PATCH] performance improvement of std::count algorithm
2011-11-10 11:40 [Bug libstdc++/51078] New: [PATCH] performance improvement of std::count algorithm grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com
` (17 preceding siblings ...)
2011-11-12 13:12 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
@ 2011-11-12 13:21 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2011-11-15 10:58 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
19 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: paolo.carlini at oracle dot com @ 2011-11-12 13:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51078
--- Comment #19 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> 2011-11-12 12:34:51 UTC ---
All in all - again, without having analyzed in any detail the optimization
passes - I come to the conclusion that -funroll-loops is doing its job pretty
well, and also that manually unrolling the loop make its life quite a bit
harder.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/51078] [PATCH] performance improvement of std::count algorithm
2011-11-10 11:40 [Bug libstdc++/51078] New: [PATCH] performance improvement of std::count algorithm grygoriy.fuchedzhy at gmail dot com
` (18 preceding siblings ...)
2011-11-12 13:21 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
@ 2011-11-15 10:58 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
19 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: paolo.carlini at oracle dot com @ 2011-11-15 10:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51078
Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |WORKSFORME
--- Comment #20 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> 2011-11-15 10:52:36 UTC ---
I guess we can close this.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread