From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-prs-return-30245-listarch-gcc-prs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
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: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-prs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
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?= <peturr02@ru.is>
Subject: RE: libstdc++/9876: filebuf::sputc more than 10% slower than putc
Reply-To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=E9tur_Run=F3lfsson?= <peturr02@ru.is>
X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg01482.txt.bz2
List-Id: <gcc-prs.sourceware.org>

The following reply was made to PR libstdc++/9876; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=E9tur_Run=F3lfsson?= <peturr02@ru.is>
To: <paolo@gcc.gnu.org>,
	<gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>,
	<nobody@gcc.gnu.org>,
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?P=E9tur_Run=F3lfsson?= <peturr02@ru.is>,
	<gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org>
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