From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-406027-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 8275 invoked by alias); 8 Nov 2012 02:26:34 -0000
Received: (qmail 8100 invoked by uid 55); 8 Nov 2012 02:26:16 -0000
From: "paolo.carlini at oracle dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/54075] [4.7.1] unordered_map insert still slower than 4.6.2
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 02:26:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: REOPENED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-54075-4-JAFt6ddvEV@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-54075-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-54075-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-11/txt/msg00689.txt.bz2


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075

--- Comment #43 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> 2012-11-08 02:26:12 UTC ---
On 11/08/2012 02:56 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> On the other hand, the old-old code for rehash didn't use 
> _M_growth_factor in these computations, it just literally enforced the 
> post-conditions of the Standard. Are we sure we aren't so to speak 
> rehashing too much? For example, when the load factor is very low and 
> doesn't count, it looks like a current rehash(n) accomplishes the same 
> of an old rehash(n * 2)?!? Something seems wrong, can you double check 
> that? In any case the comments before _M_next_bkt would need fixing.
... in other terms, I really think that the only uses of 
_S_growth_factor should return to be inside _M_need_rehash, because 
that's the function called by the inserts, when the container must 
automatically grow the number of buckets. Elsewhere, like the 
constructors, rehash, should not need to know about _S_growth_factor.

Paolo.