From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28505 invoked by alias); 26 Aug 2013 20:06:26 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 28462 invoked by uid 48); 26 Aug 2013 20:06:23 -0000 From: "fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libstdc++/58153] unordered_multimap::erase(iterator) is not constant-time when many entries have the same key Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 20:06:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++ X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.8.1 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2013-08/txt/msg01334.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D58153 --- Comment #5 from Fran=C3=A7ois Dumont --- And your remark is good too and will avoid me to spend some time on this id= ea. Standard requirements regarding validity of iterators won't let us have iterators invalidated because another iterator is erased, I do not need to challenge it. For information, on my side I was more concerned about how I would represent the past-the-end iterator. Regarding the idea of having an erase_after method, usage of a forward_list data structure for the hashtable implementation is a libstdc++ implementati= on detail, not a Standard requirement. So Standard committee hasn't design it = with such a design decision. Our choice of a forward_list data structure is at t= he moment the best tradeoff we came too but of course you are free to help us = find a better one. Note that I remember having tried to use a doubly linked list when reviewing hashtable implementation but the memory overhead was resulti= ng in worst performance. As you seem to have a lot of equivalent keys in your unordered_multimap you should perhaps move to an unordered_map>. I even wonder if the libstdc++ profile mode could detect such an opportunity, potentially saying what type of container should be used. >>From gcc-bugs-return-428411-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Mon Aug 26 20:27:36 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 8384 invoked by alias); 26 Aug 2013 20:27:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 8345 invoked by uid 48); 26 Aug 2013 20:27:32 -0000 From: "martin.konopka at stuba dot sk" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug regression/58244] global variable: many THOUSANDS times slower execution Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 20:27:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: regression X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.7.3 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: martin.konopka at stuba dot sk X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2013-08/txt/msg01335.txt.bz2 Content-length: 332 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D58244 --- Comment #8 from Martin Kon=C3=B4pka --- Yes, I understand now. Thanks. The lines with the sin() functions were not evaluated with the local declaration. My apologies for reporting the false = bug. I will try to close the bug if I am allowed. >>From gcc-bugs-return-428412-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Mon Aug 26 22:02:32 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 21640 invoked by alias); 26 Aug 2013 22:02:32 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 21598 invoked by uid 48); 26 Aug 2013 22:02:27 -0000 From: "dj at redhat dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug other/58238] cc1 crashes when built for ms-dos cross-compiling Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 22:02:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: other X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.7.3 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: dj at redhat dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: dj at redhat dot com X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_status cf_reconfirmed_on cc assigned_to everconfirmed attachments.created Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2013-08/txt/msg01336.txt.bz2 Content-length: 834 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58238 DJ Delorie changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed| |2013-08-26 CC| |dj at redhat dot com Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |dj at redhat dot com Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #1 from DJ Delorie --- Created attachment 30702 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30702&action=edit remove "signed" from internal type names It seems gcc no longer permits "signed" in internal type names, so this patch takes them out.