From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10959 invoked by alias); 15 Apr 2002 23:16:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 10914 invoked by uid 71); 15 Apr 2002 23:16:04 -0000 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 16:16:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20020415231603.10908.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: jason@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Jason Merrill Subject: Re: libstdc++/4150: catastrophic performance decrease in C++ code Reply-To: Jason Merrill X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00806.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR libstdc++/4150; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Jason Merrill To: libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: libstdc++/4150: catastrophic performance decrease in C++ code Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 00:15:10 +0100 >>>>> "Jason" == Jason Merrill writes: > is there any reason why we can't leave the file pointer at the end of the > last read block, rather than at the beginning as we do now? Which is what libio does, and which would seem to be the only way to avoid this sort of problem. Can anyone enlighten me as to the design goals/decisions of the current implementation? Continuing to hack... Jason