[committed] libstdc++: Optimize ref-count updates in COW std::string
Florian Weimer
fweimer@redhat.com
Wed Dec 1 18:16:43 GMT 2021
* Jonathan Wakely via Libstdc:
> diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/cow_string.h b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/cow_string.h
> index ced395b80b8..4fae1d02981 100644
> --- a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/cow_string.h
> +++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/cow_string.h
> @@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION
> * destroy the empty-string _Rep object.
> *
> * All but the last paragraph is considered pretty conventional
> - * for a C++ string implementation.
> + * for a Copy-On-Write C++ string implementation.
> */
> // 21.3 Template class basic_string
> template<typename _CharT, typename _Traits, typename _Alloc>
> @@ -207,10 +207,10 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION
> // so we need to use an atomic load. However, _M_is_leaked
> // predicate does not change concurrently (i.e. the string is either
> // leaked or not), so a relaxed load is enough.
> - return __atomic_load_n(&this->_M_refcount, __ATOMIC_RELAXED) < 0;
> -#else
> - return this->_M_refcount < 0;
> + if (!__gnu_cxx::__is_single_threaded())
> + return __atomic_load_n(&this->_M_refcount, __ATOMIC_RELAXED) < 0;
> #endif
> + return this->_M_refcount < 0;
> }
Relaxed MO loads of word-size values on all current architectures only
have a compiler barrier, so I think the optimization makes things worse?
(I doubt the conditional lack of a compiler barrier leads to
optimization improvements elsewhere.)
Thanks,
Florian
More information about the Libstdc++
mailing list