Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: We have a new standard!
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2025 16:47:50 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <20250102164750.00000977@yahoo.com>
References: <C++-20241227154547@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>
	<20250101182527.00004b2f@yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2025 15:47:53 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a487b285b1ee649d033fecbdc1f1f405";
	logging-data="3518458"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19gXxqFam2g7/GwVs4dSsZDZt6mIhBjMvA="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WHnXui/JEFScehcOsim5caPa7gc=
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 4.1.1 (GTK 3.24.34; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
Bytes: 1819

On Wed, 1 Jan 2025 18:25:27 +0200
Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote:

> 
> Now to why, despite said above, I wouldn't use std::print() in its
> current incarnation neither in production nor in hobby programs:
> because compilation is too slow. ~4 seconds on the old home PC. I
> didn't try on newer machines yet, but would be surprised if any of
> them beats 2 seconds. Which is way above my threshold of
> inconvenience.
> 

More experiments showed that slowness of compilation is caused by C++20
part (format()) rather than by C++23 addition.
It's somewhat less bad with -O1, instead of original -O2 and yet less
bad with -Og or -O0. But even for -O0 compilation takes over 2 sec.
Still above my personal threshold for annoyance.