"Andreas Kowarz" <kowarz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:410E3788.1080806@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Hello, > > we made some interesting experience while implementing and testing a software > package, which makes use of overloaded operators. One aspect of the > implementation is the speed of the resulting binaries. To find the best solution > we have tested the following approaches: normal overloading and templates. The > example (attachment) contains the source code for 3 programms: > > prog - execution without overloading > progtemp - template based > progover - normal overloading > > Compiled with g++ version 3.2 we got the following runtime: > prog about 2.9 seconds > progtemp about 2.9 seconds > progover about 3.5 seconds > It seems clear that the template based implementation should be the one to use. > > After recompiling with g++ version 3.4.1 we got a complete different result: > prog about 2.9 seconds > progtemp about 15.4 seconds !!! > progover about 3.5 seconds > This time the template version is not really good. :-( > (Same problem with g++ version 3.3.2 on a different machine) > > My questions are: > - Is this a known problem? > - Is there a compiler switch which can solve the problem? > > Sincerely yours, > > Andreas Kowarz > tar (GNU tar) 1.13.25 doesn't extract files from example.tar which contains tested sources. -- Alex Vinokur http://mathforum.org/library/view/10978.html http://sourceforge.net/users/alexvn
