From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27527 invoked by alias); 28 Feb 2003 16:06:01 -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 27509 invoked by uid 71); 28 Feb 2003 16:06:00 -0000 Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 16:06:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030228160600.27508.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=E9tur_Run=F3lfsson?= Subject: RE: libstdc++/9876: filebuf::sputc more than 10% slower than putc Reply-To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=E9tur_Run=F3lfsson?= X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg01482.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR libstdc++/9876; it has been noted by GNATS. From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=E9tur_Run=F3lfsson?= To: , , , =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=E9tur_Run=F3lfsson?= , Cc: Subject: RE: libstdc++/9876: filebuf::sputc more than 10% slower than putc Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 15:57:06 -0000 > Yes, filebuf::sputc shall be improved: patches welcome, > or, otherwise, stay tuned! > =20 > However, the funny thing of your PR is that, as a matter of > fact, I *cannot* reproduce the trend neither with mainline > (which produces better code, indeed) nor with 3.2.2! Whoops, s/putc/putc_unlocked/ :-P putc calls flockfile/funlockfile for each character, streambuf::sputc does not do so and should be compared against putc_unlocked. Petur