++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: gccbugs at jbapple dot com
Target Milestone: ---
/*
The following code is four times slower with libstdc++ than with libc++.
I think the problem is partially too many copies in stl_heap.h. Instrumenting
the code with a copy
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: gccbugs at jbapple dot com
Target Milestone: ---
/*
The following code is four times slower with libstdc++ than with libc++.
I think the problem is partially too many copies in stl_heap.h. Instrumenting
the code with a copy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70899
gccbugs at jbapple dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70898
--- Comment #1 from gccbugs at jbapple dot com ---
*** Bug 70899 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70898
gccbugs at jbapple dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: gccbugs at jbapple dot com
Target Milestone: ---
https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/gcc-7_1_0-release/libstdc%2B%2B-v3/include/bits/uniform_int_dist.h#L218
aka
https
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48101
gccbugs at jbapple dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gccbugs at jbapple dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48101
--- Comment #5 from gccbugs at jbapple dot com ---
What is the virtue of making std::allocator an error? Is this
required by the standard? Is it because calls to construct are writing to const
memory?
