https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95079
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |fdumont at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90409
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96088
--- Comment #1 from François Dumont ---
The core issue here is that unordered_map key type is std::string while you
insert const char* which explains the temporary.
In f2 you use insert(Pair&&) method so a temporary is generated but then moved
i
|1
Last reconfirmed||2020-08-04
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |fdumont at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from François Dumont ---
After further investigation the unordered containers are also suffering from a
problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91620
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
--- Comment #1 from François Dumont ---
This problem has already been fixed while upgrading std::list::remove signature
for C++17.
The fix is
||2019-12-19
CC||fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |fdumont at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #3 from François Dumont ---
I take it !
||2020-01-06
CC||fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |fdumont at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from François Dumont ---
I confirm. I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92124
--- Comment #4 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Tue Jan 7 21:01:37 2020
New Revision: 279967
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279967&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/92124 fix incorrect container move assignment
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92124
--- Comment #5 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Thu Jan 9 05:40:08 2020
New Revision: 280028
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=280028&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/92124 fix incorrect unordered container move assignment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54296
--- Comment #2 from François Dumont 2012-08-26
10:55:43 UTC ---
I will have a closer look but what I can say for the moment is that the tested
source code doesn't seem to match the latest trunk state, the line numbers
don't match. Can you have a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54296
--- Comment #7 from François Dumont 2012-08-27
07:58:49 UTC ---
I confirm that it is an old issue, it has surely always be there. I managed to
reproduce it from the testsuite. The problem is that the current code works
fine when the key instance
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54296
--- Comment #9 from François Dumont 2012-09-05
19:41:21 UTC ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Wed Sep 5 19:41:16 2012
New Revision: 190991
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190991
Log:
2012-09-05 François Dumont
PR libstdc++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44436
--- Comment #32 from François Dumont 2012-09-24
19:53:46 UTC ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Mon Sep 24 19:53:36 2012
New Revision: 191679
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191679
Log:
2012-09-24 François Dumont
PR libstdc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #30 from François Dumont 2012-10-24
19:27:58 UTC ---
I am going to take a look to 4.4 implementation to see if I can explain the
difference. But waiting for that can you confirm that without the reserve the
number of rehash is simila
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #33 from François Dumont 2012-11-03
15:28:30 UTC ---
I fear that this performance issue is a normal drawback of the major
enhancement for PR 41975. Before this evolution the hashtable data model was
like a std::vector. During the ins
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #38 from François Dumont 2012-11-06
21:22:48 UTC ---
Sure, I will. However I don't expect this problem to have any relation with the
performance subject of this PR.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #44 from François Dumont 2012-11-08
20:06:08 UTC ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Thu Nov 8 20:06:00 2012
New Revision: 193335
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193335
Log:
2012-11-08 François Dumont
PR libstdc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #45 from François Dumont 2012-11-08
20:16:15 UTC ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Thu Nov 8 20:16:04 2012
New Revision: 193339
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193339
Log:
2012-11-08 François Dumont
PR libstdc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13631
--- Comment #30 from François Dumont 2011-01-14
21:36:34 UTC ---
Created attachment 22967
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22967
locale message facet patch
Hi
Here is a patch proposition based on revision 168822. I can't ap
||2013-07-04
CC||fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |fdumont at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from François Dumont ---
Sure I can take
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57885
--- Comment #5 from François Dumont ---
The biggest performance regression introduced in version 4.8 is coming from an
attempt to enhance unordered containers global performances. The data model has
been modified because the erase operation had be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57885
--- Comment #7 from François Dumont ---
I had a try and the result is not good. I attached the modified implementation
if you want to have a try even if it is not perfect cause there are some
exception safety issue.
With the current implementatio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57840
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57840
--- Comment #2 from François Dumont ---
Created attachment 30596
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30596&action=edit
The modified hashtable implementation
To replace hashtable.h in include/bits
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57885
--- Comment #9 from François Dumont ---
Created attachment 30610
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30610&action=edit
hashtable_policy.h
File to replace the one in include/bits folder
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57885
--- Comment #10 from François Dumont ---
Created attachment 30611
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30611&action=edit
hashtable.h
File to replace the one in include/bits
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58153
--- Comment #3 from François Dumont ---
This report entry made me wonder why iterators could not just be pointing to
the node just before the one containing the pointed to value. For instance
begin() iterator would contained the before_begin one.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58153
--- Comment #5 from François Dumont ---
And your remark is good too and will avoid me to spend some time on this idea.
Standard requirements regarding validity of iterators won't let us have
iterators invalidated because another iterator is erased
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58191
--- Comment #9 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Fri Aug 30 20:16:03 2013
New Revision: 202119
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202119&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-08-30 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/58191
* include/debu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58148
--- Comment #3 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Fri Aug 30 20:55:37 2013
New Revision: 202121
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202121&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-08-30 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/58148
* include/debu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53115
--- Comment #5 from François Dumont 2012-05-01
19:38:35 UTC ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Tue May 1 19:38:28 2012
New Revision: 187023
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187023
Log:
2012-05-01 François Dumont
PR libstdc++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53115
--- Comment #6 from François Dumont 2012-05-01
20:29:24 UTC ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Tue May 1 20:29:16 2012
New Revision: 187025
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187025
Log:
2012-05-01 François Dumont
PR libstdc++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53263
--- Comment #6 from François Dumont 2012-05-07
20:37:57 UTC ---
I see 2 possible modifications for this problem.
The first one would be to avoid the numerous calls to _M_can_advance. In
priority_queue each time an element is pushed there is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53263
--- Comment #10 from François Dumont 2012-05-08
19:31:49 UTC ---
Ok, I will submit a patch tomorrow generalizing usage of __gnu_debug::__base in
debug macros.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53263
--- Comment #11 from François Dumont 2012-05-11
19:21:38 UTC ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Fri May 11 19:21:31 2012
New Revision: 187414
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187414
Log:
2012-05-11 François Dumont
PR libstdc+
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53263
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #9 from François Dumont 2012-07-24
20:15:10 UTC ---
I confirm that the reserve method is broken. I had correctly handle the size
hint that can be given through the hashtable constructor, I set
_M_rehash_policy._M_prev_resize to 0 just
at gcc dot |fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #11 from François Dumont 2012-07-25
19:32:53 UTC ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Wed Jul 25 19:32:48 2012
New Revision: 189863
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189863
Log:
2012-07-25 François Dumont
PR libstdc+
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #13 from François Dumont 2012-07-26
12:31:56 UTC ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Thu Jul 26 12:31:50 2012
New Revision: 189889
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189889
Log:
2012-07-26 François Dumont
PR libstdc+
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #21 from François Dumont 2012-07-27
07:57:59 UTC ---
I haven't touch the grow speed for the moment. I prefer to fix the reserve
Standard conformity first.
Now I can restore the 4.6 grow speed as it seems to be a relatively correct
on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #23 from François Dumont 2012-07-29
16:44:26 UTC ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Sun Jul 29 16:44:18 2012
New Revision: 189938
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189938
Log:
2012-07-29 François Dumont
PR libstdc+
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #24 from François Dumont 2012-07-29
17:06:25 UTC ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Sun Jul 29 17:06:21 2012
New Revision: 189941
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189941
Log:
2012-07-29 François Dumont
PR libstdc+
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52476
--- Comment #5 from François Dumont 2012-03-16
21:03:24 UTC ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Fri Mar 16 21:03:15 2012
New Revision: 185476
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185476
Log:
2012-03-15 François Dumont
PR libstdc++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52476
--- Comment #6 from François Dumont 2012-04-09
19:12:23 UTC ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Mon Apr 9 19:12:18 2012
New Revision: 186249
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186249
Log:
2012-04-09 François Dumont
PR libstdc++
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org
Since adaptation of std::_Rb_tree_iterator to conform to C++11 allocator
requirements there is no more _M_value_field member in _Rb_tree_iterator type
when compile
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41975
--- Comment #33 from François Dumont 2011-11-23
20:30:25 UTC ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Wed Nov 23 20:30:18 2011
New Revision: 181677
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181677
Log:
2011-11-23 François Dumont
PR libstdc++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51386
--- Comment #7 from François Dumont 2011-12-05
20:55:59 UTC ---
The problem is in the hash policy, while computing _M_prev_resize the max load
factor is not always considered. The result is that when max load factor is
lower than 1 the hashtable
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51386
--- Comment #8 from François Dumont 2011-12-07
19:47:08 UTC ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Wed Dec 7 19:47:03 2011
New Revision: 182085
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182085
Log:
2011-12-07 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51608
--- Comment #1 from François Dumont 2011-12-29
17:58:57 UTC ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Thu Dec 29 17:58:51 2011
New Revision: 182727
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182727
Log:
2011-12-29 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51845
--- Comment #13 from François Dumont 2012-01-15
21:13:59 UTC ---
I will have a try with Valgrin but line numbers in the comments here do not
seem to all match the latest hashtable code commited on trunk in revision
183164. This last commit really
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51866
--- Comment #7 from François Dumont 2012-01-18
20:18:20 UTC ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Wed Jan 18 20:17:57 2012
New Revision: 183285
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183285
Log:
2012-01-18 François Dumont
Roman Kon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51866
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51845
--- Comment #18 from François Dumont 2012-01-18
20:44:21 UTC ---
I was about to say that resolution of PR 51866 might also explain the memory
issue of this PR but I am now going to double check your post.
Thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85768
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |fdumont at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71181
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |fdumont at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85845
--- Comment #2 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Mon May 21 16:51:47 2018
New Revision: 260478
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260478&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-21 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/85845
* in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85845
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85768
--- Comment #4 from François Dumont ---
Created attachment 44187
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44187&action=edit
Remove backtrace usage during bootstrap.
I wonder if this patch could fix the bootstrap ? I try to avoid the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85768
--- Comment #5 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Fri May 25 16:40:55 2018
New Revision: 260761
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260761&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-25 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/85768
* sr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86272
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |fdumont at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80761
--- Comment #5 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Mon Dec 18 21:59:17 2017
New Revision: 255789
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255789&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-11-20 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/80761
* in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82522
--- Comment #8 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Wed Dec 20 21:53:25 2017
New Revision: 255904
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255904&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-12-20 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/82522
* in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82522
--- Comment #9 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Thu Dec 28 05:37:54 2017
New Revision: 256018
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256018&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-12-28 François Dumont
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83709
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |fdumont at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83709
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83709
--- Comment #2 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Tue Jan 9 21:05:10 2018
New Revision: 256396
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256396&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-09 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/83709
* in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83709
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89608
--- Comment #2 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Fri Mar 8 05:37:50 2019
New Revision: 269478
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269478&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-03-08 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/89608
* in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89477
--- Comment #6 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Fri Mar 8 05:53:09 2019
New Revision: 269479
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269479&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-03-08 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/89477
* in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90277
--- Comment #1 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Sat May 4 07:41:39 2019
New Revision: 270870
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270870&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add missing PR libstdc++/90277 reference.
Modified:
trunk/libstdc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90277
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90277
--- Comment #5 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Wed May 8 13:03:32 2019
New Revision: 271011
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271011&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-05-08 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/90277
* te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90277
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |fdumont at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from François Dumont ---
Patch awaiting on mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2019-06/msg00097.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86272
--- Comment #5 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Wed Jul 4 18:13:11 2018
New Revision: 262417
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262417&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-07-04 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/86272
* in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86272
--- Comment #6 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Thu Jul 5 05:14:36 2018
New Revision: 262430
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262430&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-07-05 François Dumont
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86272
--- Comment #7 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Thu Jul 5 20:48:02 2018
New Revision: 262454
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262454&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-07-05 François Dumont
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86272
--- Comment #8 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Thu Jul 5 20:51:27 2018
New Revision: 262455
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262455&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-07-05 François Dumont
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86272
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||2018-07-24
CC||fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |fdumont at gcc dot
gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
Ever confirmed|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60519
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68222
--- Comment #2 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Wed Aug 22 18:51:25 2018
New Revision: 263786
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263786&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-08-22 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/68222
* in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68222
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87135
--- Comment #2 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Tue Sep 18 20:36:16 2018
New Revision: 264413
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264413&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-09-18 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/87135
* sr
|--- |FIXED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |fdumont at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from François Dumont ---
Rehash policy has been reviewed, rehash will take place only when reserved size
is overwhelmed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87135
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87135
--- Comment #4 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Fri Sep 21 20:39:07 2018
New Revision: 264494
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264494&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-09-21 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/87135
* sr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84998
--- Comment #3 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Tue Mar 20 21:45:14 2018
New Revision: 258693
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258693&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-03-20 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/84998
* in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68303
--- Comment #3 from François Dumont ---
Even if I always considered unordered containers to be high volume containers
that's an interesting idea.
As this is a pretty old entry I guess I'll have to try it myself.
||fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |fdumont at gcc dot
gnu.org
||2018-11-03
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |fdumont at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from François Dumont ---
All this reflection looks perfectly fine to me, thanks reporting it.
Don't you want to sub
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87872
--- Comment #4 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Tue Nov 6 20:20:06 2018
New Revision: 265851
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265851&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-11-06 John Bytheway
PR libstdc++/87872
* incl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87872
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88199
--- Comment #2 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Tue Nov 27 21:21:51 2018
New Revision: 266528
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266528&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-11-27 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/88199
* in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88199
--- Comment #3 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Wed Nov 28 06:19:38 2018
New Revision: 266542
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266542&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-11-28 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/88199
* in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88199
--- Comment #4 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Wed Nov 28 06:27:28 2018
New Revision: 266543
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266543&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-11-28 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/88199
* in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #50 from François Dumont ---
This performance issue is a result of fixing:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41975
It resulted in many more modulo operations and so expensive float divisions.
I plan to commit an alternat
1 - 100 of 186 matches
Mail list logo
