Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #121436

Re: We have a new standard!

Show key headers only | View raw

Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> writes:

> On 08.01.2025 07:15, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>
>> Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> writes:
>>
>>> On 02.01.2025 10:39, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>>
>>>> Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> writes:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> Half of the slowness of both in C printf() and C++ streams comes
>>>>> from the locale support, [...]
>>>>
>>>> I find this assertion very hard to believe (specifically, for
>>>> printf();  I might guess that C++ streams have similar
>>>> performance characteristics, but I don't have nearly as much
>>>> experience with C++ streams as I do with printf()).
>>>>
>>>> Is there anything else you can say about it besides an
>>>> unsupported assertion?
>>>
>>> Probably you were misled by my vague word usage.  I said "half of the
>>> slowness", not "half of the total time".  As "slowness" is nowhere
>>> exactly defined, this was just a figure of speech, no need to get
>>> overly upset about that.
>>
>> I'm not upset, just disappointed.  I consider you one of the better
>> contributors in the newsgroups, and so it's surprising to see a
>> statement from you with zero information content.
>>
>>> Anyway, I have profiled the writing of large CSV tables (multi-GB)
>>> which was deemed too slow.  90% of time was spent in sprintf() calls,
>>> from which 10% was spent in locale-related routines, presumably for
>>> checking that the global process locale has not changed during the
>>> last microsecond.  Considering that our CSV file format had to always
>>> use the fixed C-locale format anyway, this locale checking was
>>> something which was absolutely unneeded.
>>
>> The 10% number is interesting, and disappointing.  Surely the authors
>> of the standard library implementation could have done better.
>> Incidentally, I did a measurement of the cost of localeconv() on my
>> test server (running Ubuntu), and that gave a result in line with
>> your 10% number.
>>
>>> We tried to parallelize the writing, expecting to increase the speed N
>>> times by using N threads, but alas, as the locale is a global
>>> thread-shared object, now the threads started to fight over it and the
>>> performance did not scale nowhere near to our expectations.  (The
>>> thread-specific locales were not available an all needed platforms).
>>
>> Does the C standard (or the C++ standard) allow locale information to
>> be thread-specific?  I don't see anything in the C standard that looks
>> like the <locale.h> functions can be anything but global.  I haven't
>> looked at what C++ allows.
>
> _configthreadlocale() is a MS extension.
>
> "https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/
>    c-runtime-library/reference/configthreadlocale"
>
>>> We resolved it finally by using std::to_chars() for integer data and
>>> Google's double-conversion library for floating-point data (our C++
>>> implementations did not support std::to_chars() on floating-point data
>>> on all needed platforms at that time).
>>
>> It's disappointing that the C standard (and I assume also the C++
>> standard) doesn't provide conversion functions that don't use global
>> locale information.  Oh, come to think of it, I think I saw some C++
>> functions (in which C++ standard I don't know) that pass locale
>> information in explicitly, which is probably what you were alluding
>> to above.
>
> MSVC has _sprintf_l() which takes a locale explicitly, but this is
> again a non-standard extension.
>
> Regardless if the locale is passed in implicitly or explicitly, the
> function would still need to process it, which might take non-zero
> time.

I'm pretty sure the amount of locale processing needed by *printf()
functions is minimal, and most of the cost is the effort needed to
put together the whole locale information structure, most of which
is not used.

> We were aiming to use functions which would not consider locales
> at all.

Understood.  And there may be some other *printf() functionality
that you don't need either.  The *printf() functions are useful,
but the full generality is quite a terror.

> C++ actually delivers that with std::to_chars() since C++17.  I have
> not measured how fast it is nowadays, compared to Google's
> double-conversion.
>
> Fast *and* accurate printing of floating-point numbers is not a
> trivial task.  AFAIK last significant advances in this area were done
> as late as in 2010.  See
> e.g. "http://www.serpentine.com/blog/2011/06/29/
>    here-be-dragons-advances-in-problems-you-didnt-even-know-you-had/"

Yes, I am well aware of the difficulties of formatting floating
point output.

Does your output need to be human readable, or is program readable
good enough?  If the consumers can deal with non-decimal formatting,
you could use %a or %A, which is easier and faster to produce.

Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: We have a new standard! Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-01-01 18:25 +0200
  Re: We have a new standard! Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-01-01 16:33 +0000
    Re: We have a new standard! Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-01-01 09:41 -0800
    Re: We have a new standard! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-01-02 08:06 +0100
      Re: We have a new standard! Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-01-02 09:23 +0000
        Re: We have a new standard! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-01-02 13:51 +0100
          Re: We have a new standard! Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-02 14:07 +0000
            Re: We have a new standard! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-01-02 17:54 +0100
              Re: We have a new standard! Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-02 17:15 +0000
                Re: We have a new standard! Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-01-02 13:58 -0800
                Re: We have a new standard! Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-03 10:13 +0000
                Re: We have a new standard! Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-01-03 11:22 -0800
                Re: We have a new standard! Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-01-04 10:17 +0000
                Re: We have a new standard! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-01-04 12:31 +0100
                Re: We have a new standard! Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-01-04 11:34 +0000
                Re: We have a new standard! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-01-04 14:01 +0100
                Re: We have a new standard! Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-01-04 15:49 +0000
                Re: We have a new standard! Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-01-03 17:42 -0800
              Re: We have a new standard! Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2025-01-02 15:20 -0500
                Re: We have a new standard! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-01-03 13:43 +0100
                Re: We have a new standard! Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2025-01-03 08:11 -0500
                Re: We have a new standard! Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2025-01-03 16:33 +0200
                Re: We have a new standard! Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2025-01-03 10:50 -0500
                Re: We have a new standard! Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-03 16:09 +0000
                Re: We have a new standard! Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2025-01-03 11:53 -0500
                Re: We have a new standard! Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-01-03 17:10 +0000
                Re: We have a new standard! Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2025-01-03 12:14 -0500
                Re: We have a new standard! Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-01-04 10:13 +0000
                Re: We have a new standard! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-01-03 18:17 +0100
                Re: We have a new standard! Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2025-01-03 13:58 -0500
                Re: We have a new standard! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-01-04 12:39 +0100
                Re: We have a new standard! Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2025-01-04 09:56 -0500
                Re: We have a new standard! Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2025-01-03 21:46 +0200
                Re: We have a new standard! Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2025-01-03 21:06 -0500
                Re: We have a new standard! Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-01-03 18:32 -0800
                Re: We have a new standard! Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2025-01-04 20:08 +0200
                Re: We have a new standard! Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2025-01-04 14:46 -0500
                Re: We have a new standard! wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-01-05 07:14 +0800
                Re: We have a new standard! Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-06 08:38 +0000
                Re: We have a new standard! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2025-01-07 08:40 -0500
                Re: We have a new standard! Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-07 14:04 +0000
                Re: We have a new standard! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2025-01-08 14:52 -0500
                Re: We have a new standard! Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-01-08 13:31 -0800
                Re: We have a new standard! Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-09 08:39 +0000
                Re: We have a new standard! Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2025-01-07 21:32 -0500
                Re: We have a new standard! Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-01-03 17:49 -0800
                Re: We have a new standard! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-01-03 17:12 +0100
                Re: We have a new standard! Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2025-01-03 11:56 -0500
          Re: We have a new standard! Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-01-02 17:35 +0200
            Re: We have a new standard! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-01-02 17:57 +0100
              Re: We have a new standard! Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-01-02 19:55 +0200
      Re: We have a new standard! Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-01-02 13:40 -0800
        Re: We have a new standard! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-01-03 09:42 +0100
    Re: We have a new standard! Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-01-02 13:38 -0800
      Re: We have a new standard! Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-03 10:09 +0000
        Re: We have a new standard! Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-01-03 11:19 -0800
          Re: We have a new standard! Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-01-04 10:15 +0000
  Re: We have a new standard! Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2025-01-01 22:43 +0200
    Re: We have a new standard! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-01-02 07:56 +0100
    Re: We have a new standard! Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-01-02 00:39 -0800
      Re: We have a new standard! Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2025-01-02 12:31 +0200
        Re: We have a new standard! Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-01-02 14:59 +0200
          Re: We have a new standard! Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2025-01-02 15:50 +0200
        Re: We have a new standard! Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-01-07 21:15 -0800
          Re: We have a new standard! Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2025-01-08 08:44 +0200
            Re: We have a new standard! Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-01-08 11:44 +0200
              Re: We have a new standard! James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-01-08 15:04 -0500
              Re: We have a new standard! Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-01-14 08:49 -0800
            Re: We have a new standard! Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-01-14 09:12 -0800
              Re: We have a new standard! Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2025-01-14 19:53 +0200
          Re: We have a new standard! "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-01-08 14:43 -0800
    Re: We have a new standard! scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-01-02 20:51 +0000
  Re: We have a new standard! Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-01-02 16:47 +0200

csiph-web