On 03/06/19 19:18 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
Sorry for the mis-understanding but the core of this patch has already
been committed after your approval here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2019-05/msg00023.html
OK, thanks. I didn't realise it superseded this one. I thought there
might sti
Sorry for the mis-understanding but the core of this patch has already
been committed after your approval here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2019-05/msg00023.html
It was considered as PR 90277 fix but eventually I also change tests to
make those implementation-details agnostics.
However
Re https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-10/msg00903.html
On 15/10/18 22:46 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
I started considering PR libstdc++/68303.
First thing was to write a dedicated performance test case, it is the
unordered_small_size.cc I'd like to add with this patch.
Great, more pe
I started considering PR libstdc++/68303.
First thing was to write a dedicated performance test case, it is the
unordered_small_size.cc I'd like to add with this patch.
The first runs show a major difference between tr1 and std
implementations, tr1 being much better:
std::tr1::unordered_set
