http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58437
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jmbnyc at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58437
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chris at bubblescope dot net
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58437
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
I can't reproduce this. I tried compiling with -O3 (with 4.4, 4.7 and 4.8)
after commenting out either of the 2 sort lines, and I see roughly the same
execution times (maybe a few % difference, but nowhere near
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58437
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
Less confusing testcase:
#include
#include
using namespace std;
int main()
{
const int num = 1000;
vector v; v.reserve(num);
for(int i=0;i!=num;++i) v.push_back(-i);
sort(v.begin(), v.end());
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58437
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
Ah forget my last message, I understand now you are really interested in how
long it takes to reverse-sort an already sorted vector. Indeed it does take
much longer with 4.6+ than with 4.4.
