public inbox for libstdc++-cvs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-cvs@gcc.gnu.org, libstdc++-cvs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [gcc r11-7937] improve future::poll calibration loop
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 18:51:18 +0000 (GMT)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210331185118.A989D3857C67@sourceware.org> (raw)

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eadf009b229ed5d45d1c2d82d72ad2ba9a2e63b1

commit r11-7937-geadf009b229ed5d45d1c2d82d72ad2ba9a2e63b1
Author: Alexandre Oliva <oliva@adacore.com>
Date:   Wed Mar 31 15:34:47 2021 -0300

    improve future::poll calibration loop
    
    The calibration loop I've recently added to the libstdc++
    future/members/poll.cc tests could still select iteration counts that
    might yield zero-time measurements for the wait_for when ready loop.
    
    Waiting for a future that has already had a value set is presumably
    uniformly faster than a zero-timed wait for a result, so I've changed
    the calibration loop to use the former.
    
    We might still be unlucky and get nonzero from the initial loop, so
    that the calibration is skipped altogether, but then get zero from the
    later when-ready loop.  I'm not dealing with this case in this patch.
    
    
    for  libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog
    
            * testsuite/30_threads/future/members/poll.cc: Use faster
            after-ready call in the calibration loop.

Diff:
---
 libstdc++-v3/testsuite/30_threads/future/members/poll.cc | 8 +++++++-
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/30_threads/future/members/poll.cc b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/30_threads/future/members/poll.cc
index 133dae15ac4..4c846d0b7ba 100644
--- a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/30_threads/future/members/poll.cc
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/30_threads/future/members/poll.cc
@@ -55,6 +55,12 @@ int main()
      Attempt to calibrate it.  */
   if (start == stop)
     {
+      /* After set_value, wait_for is faster, so use that for the
+	 calibration to avoid zero at low clock resultions.  */
+      promise<int> pc;
+      future<int> fc = pc.get_future();
+      pc.set_value(1);
+
       /* Loop until the clock advances, so that start is right after a
 	 time increment.  */
       do
@@ -65,7 +71,7 @@ int main()
 	 after another time increment.  */
       do
 	{
-	  f.wait_for(chrono::seconds(0));
+	  fc.wait_for(chrono::seconds(0));
 	  stop = chrono::high_resolution_clock::now();
 	  i++;
 	}


                 reply	other threads:[~2021-03-31 18:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed

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=20210331185118.A989D3857C67@sourceware.org \
    --to=aoliva@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-cvs@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=libstdc++-cvs@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).