| Message ID | 505EDF90.8080405@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
Hi, On 09/23/2012 12:08 PM, François Dumont wrote: > Hi > > I detect this regression while running performance tests. I think > it comes from: > > 2012-04-12 Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz@redhat.com> > > * include/bits/unordered_map.h (__unordered_map): Remove. > (__unordered_multimap): Remove. > Add aliases for __umap_traits, __umap_hashtable, __ummap_traits, > __ummap_hashtable. > (unordered_map): Derive from __umap_hashtable. > (unordered_multimap): Derive from __ummap_hashtable. > * include/bits/unordered_set.h (__unordered_set): Remove. > (__unordered_multiset): Remove. > ... > > 2012-09-19 François Dumont <fdumont@gcc.gnu.org> > > * testsuite/performance/23_containers/insert_erase/41975.cc: Use > __uset_hashtable rather than now missing __unordered_set. > > Ok to commit ? Given the current code, I think it qualifies as obvious. Anyway, too bad anyway that we don't have anymore the __unordered_* names for the extension containers taking an additional parameter, seemed very natural. By the way, Francois, I think it's time to commit the patch for 44436... and thanks again! Thanks, Paolo.
Index: testsuite/performance/23_containers/insert_erase/41975.cc =================================================================== --- testsuite/performance/23_containers/insert_erase/41975.cc (revision 191279) +++ testsuite/performance/23_containers/insert_erase/41975.cc (working copy) @@ -40,8 +40,9 @@ const int nb = 200000; start_counters(time, resource); - std::__unordered_set<int, std::hash<int>, std::equal_to<int>, - std::allocator<int>, use_cache> us; + std::__uset_hashtable<int, std::hash<int>, std::equal_to<int>, + std::allocator<int>, + std::__uset_traits<use_cache>> us; for (int i = 0; i != nb; ++i) us.insert(i); @@ -125,9 +126,10 @@ start_counters(time, resource); - std::__unordered_set<std::string, std::hash<std::string>, - std::equal_to<std::string>, - std::allocator<std::string>, use_cache> us; + std::__uset_hashtable<std::string, std::hash<std::string>, + std::equal_to<std::string>, + std::allocator<std::string>, + std::__uset_traits<use_cache>> us; for (int i = 0; i != nb; ++i) us.insert(strs[i]);
Hi I detect this regression while running performance tests. I think it comes from: 2012-04-12 Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz@redhat.com> * include/bits/unordered_map.h (__unordered_map): Remove. (__unordered_multimap): Remove. Add aliases for __umap_traits, __umap_hashtable, __ummap_traits, __ummap_hashtable. (unordered_map): Derive from __umap_hashtable. (unordered_multimap): Derive from __ummap_hashtable. * include/bits/unordered_set.h (__unordered_set): Remove. (__unordered_multiset): Remove. ... 2012-09-19 François Dumont <fdumont@gcc.gnu.org> * testsuite/performance/23_containers/insert_erase/41975.cc: Use __uset_hashtable rather than now missing __unordered_set. Ok to commit ? François