This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH 5/6] vfprintf: Introduce printf_positional function
- From: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
- To: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at redhat dot com>
- Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 16:02:46 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] vfprintf: Introduce printf_positional function
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <cover dot 1425246936 dot git dot fweimer at redhat dot com> <06448920c54ddf7d92cce8a2311a0daf470436aa dot 1425246936 dot git dot fweimer at redhat dot com> <54F9A453 dot 5060506 at redhat dot com> <555D53A1 dot 60604 at redhat dot com> <20150521041605 dot GL15498 at spoyarek dot pnq dot redhat dot com> <555D6537 dot 1090600 at redhat dot com>
On 05/21/2015 06:55 AM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> Oh! You're saying that the performance domain of positional versus
> non-positional is different and should not be lumped together, as
> Florian did not lump them together in his analysis.
Here's the run with both vfprintf-patched (build) and unpatched
(build-master) sources:
==> build/benchtests/bench-sprintf.out <==
"sprintf": {
"positional": {
"duration": 2.4935e+10,
"iterations": 1.6674e+07,
"max": 1724.24,
"min": 1486.34,
"mean": 1495.44
},
"non-positional": {
"duration": 2.49332e+10,
"iterations": 2.5191e+07,
"max": 1204.71,
"min": 984.675,
"mean": 989.767
}
}
==> build-master/benchtests/bench-sprintf.out <==
"sprintf": {
"positional": {
"duration": 2.49366e+10,
"iterations": 1.4544e+07,
"max": 1948.33,
"min": 1709.47,
"mean": 1714.57
},
"non-positional": {
"duration": 2.49334e+10,
"iterations": 2.3758e+07,
"max": 1277.08,
"min": 1042.82,
"mean": 1049.47
}
}
Again, the numbers are suspiciously good. But at least they do not show
a performance regression.
I'll commit the remaining vfprintf patches then.
--
Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security