On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 at 09:47, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 at 09:25, Daniel Krügler > wrote: > >> Am Do., 17. Nov. 2022 um 10:07 Uhr schrieb Jonathan Wakely >> : >> > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, 17 Nov 2022, 06:30 Daniel Krügler via Libstdc++, < >> libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> Am Mi., 16. Nov. 2022 um 22:00 Uhr schrieb Jonathan Wakely via >> >> Libstdc++ : >> >> > >> >> > Tested x86_64-linux. Pushed to trunk. >> >> > >> >> > -- >8 -- >> >> > >> >> > We can use an array instead of a std::vector, and we can avoid the >> >> > binary search for the common case of a time point after the most >> recent >> >> > leap second. On one system where I tested this, utc_clock::now() now >> >> > takes about 16ns instead of 31ns. >> >> > >> >> > libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog: >> >> > >> >> > * include/std/chrono (get_leap_second_info): Optimize. >> >> > --- >> >> > libstdc++-v3/include/std/chrono | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------- >> >> > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) >> >> > >> >> > diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/include/std/chrono >> b/libstdc++-v3/include/std/chrono >> >> > index 90b73f8198e..2468023f6c5 100644 >> >> > --- a/libstdc++-v3/include/std/chrono >> >> > +++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/std/chrono >> >> > @@ -2747,9 +2747,7 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION >> >> > { >> >> > if constexpr (is_same_v<_Duration, seconds>) >> >> > { >> >> > - // TODO move this function into the library and get >> leaps from tzdb. >> >> > - vector __leaps >> >> > - { >> >> > + const seconds::rep __leaps[] { >> >> > 78796800, // 1 Jul 1972 >> >> > 94694400, // 1 Jan 1973 >> >> > 126230400, // 1 Jan 1974 >> >> > @@ -2778,12 +2776,31 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION >> >> > 1435708800, // 1 Jul 2015 >> >> > 1483228800, // 1 Jan 2017 >> >> > }; >> >> > + // The list above is known to be valid until 2023-06-28 >> 00:00:00 UTC >> >> > + const seconds::rep __expires = 1687910400; >> >> > + const seconds::rep __s = __ut.time_since_epoch().count(); >> >> > >> >> > - auto __s = __ut.time_since_epoch().count(); >> >> > - auto __pos = std::upper_bound(__leaps.begin(), >> __leaps.end(), __s); >> >> > + const seconds::rep* __first = std::begin(__leaps); >> >> > + const seconds::rep* __last = std::end(__leaps); >> >> > + >> >> > + if (__s > __expires) >> >> > + { >> >> > + // TODO: use updated leap_seconds from tzdb >> >> > +#if 0 >> >> > + auto __db = get_tzdb_list().begin(); >> >> > + __first = __db->leap_seconds.data(); >> >> > + __last = __first + __db->leap_seconds.size(); >> >> > +#endif >> >> > + } >> >> > + >> >> > + // Don't bother searching the list if we're after the >> last one. >> >> > + if (__s > __last[-1]) >> >> > + return { false, seconds(__last - __first) }; >> >> > + >> >> > + auto __pos = std::upper_bound(__first, __last, __s); >> >> > return { >> >> > - __pos != __leaps.begin() && __pos[-1] == __s, >> >> > - seconds{__pos - __leaps.begin()} >> >> > + __pos != begin(__leaps) && __pos[-1] == __s, >> >> >> >> The inconsistency between usage of std::begin versus begin here seems >> >> odd and I'm wondering why instead of "begin(__leaps)" the above >> >> introduced "__first" variable is not used instead. >> > >> > >> > Because this code is going to be changed again soon, this is a partial >> merge from a local branch with the TODO fixed. Yes, it's inconsistent, but >> it works correctly and it's not my priority right now :-) >> >> What about the suggestion to use the already existing "__first" >> variable instead of the begin call? >> > > It's an array, the begin call is free. > Do you really want me to stop working on the missing time zone support to test and commit that change?