public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "chris at bubblescope dot net" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/58358] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] search_n has a Complexity violation for random access iterator
Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2013 20:37:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-58358-4-5R9qzYAPqV@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-58358-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58358

--- Comment #14 from Chris Jefferson <chris at bubblescope dot net> ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #12)
> Chris, did you consider applying this optimized code to bidirectional
> iterators and not just random access iterators? We may end up doing a few
> more ++/-- than necessary, but not by more than a factor 2 I believe, and we
> would often save many calls to the predicate. Something may also be doable
> for forward iterators, but that's more complicated for less gain and
> couldn't share the same code.

I considered this, but as you say this would slow things down in some cases,
and I've found bugs which cause slowdowns in any situation tend to have serious
problems getting accepted.


  parent reply	other threads:[~2013-09-08 20:37 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <bug-58358-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2013-09-08  6:39 ` [Bug libstdc++/58358] " glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-09-08  9:13 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2013-09-08  9:22 ` [Bug libstdc++/58358] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] " paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2013-09-08 11:19 ` chris at bubblescope dot net
2013-09-08 11:29 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2013-09-08 14:06 ` chris at bubblescope dot net
2013-09-08 14:09 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2013-09-08 14:15 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2013-09-08 14:22 ` daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
2013-09-08 14:27 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2013-09-08 14:48 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-09-08 20:36 ` chris at bubblescope dot net
2013-09-08 20:37 ` chris at bubblescope dot net [this message]
2013-09-09 16:56 ` kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com
2013-09-09 16:59 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2013-09-09 17:03 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2013-09-10 12:39 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2013-09-10 13:19 ` chris at bubblescope dot net
2013-09-10 13:28 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2013-09-10 13:30 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2013-09-10 14:01 ` chris at bubblescope dot net
2013-09-10 16:41 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2013-09-11 22:25 ` paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-09-11 22:27 ` [Bug libstdc++/58358] [4.7/4.8 " paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2013-09-19 10:20 ` paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-09-19 10:21 ` [Bug libstdc++/58358] [4.7 " paolo.carlini at oracle 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=bug-58358-4-5R9qzYAPqV@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --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).