Skip to main content

Return to Answer

replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/
Source Link
URL Rewriter Bot
URL Rewriter Bot

I'm late to the party, but here is a fairly efficient solution:

std::string gulp(std::istream &in) { std::string ret; char buffer[4096]; while (in.read(buffer, sizeof(buffer))) ret.append(buffer, sizeof(buffer)); ret.append(buffer, in.gcount()); return ret; }

I did some benchmarking, and it turns out that the std::istreambuf_iterator technique (used by the accepted answerused by the accepted answer) is actually much slower. On gcc 4.4.5 with -O3, it's about a 4.5x difference on my machine, and the gap becomes wider with lower optimization settings.

I'm late to the party, but here is a fairly efficient solution:

std::string gulp(std::istream &in) { std::string ret; char buffer[4096]; while (in.read(buffer, sizeof(buffer))) ret.append(buffer, sizeof(buffer)); ret.append(buffer, in.gcount()); return ret; }

I did some benchmarking, and it turns out that the std::istreambuf_iterator technique (used by the accepted answer) is actually much slower. On gcc 4.4.5 with -O3, it's about a 4.5x difference on my machine, and the gap becomes wider with lower optimization settings.

I'm late to the party, but here is a fairly efficient solution:

std::string gulp(std::istream &in) { std::string ret; char buffer[4096]; while (in.read(buffer, sizeof(buffer))) ret.append(buffer, sizeof(buffer)); ret.append(buffer, in.gcount()); return ret; }

I did some benchmarking, and it turns out that the std::istreambuf_iterator technique (used by the accepted answer) is actually much slower. On gcc 4.4.5 with -O3, it's about a 4.5x difference on my machine, and the gap becomes wider with lower optimization settings.

Source Link
Joey Adams
Joey Adams
  • 43.7k
  • 19
  • 89
  • 115

I'm late to the party, but here is a fairly efficient solution:

std::string gulp(std::istream &in) { std::string ret; char buffer[4096]; while (in.read(buffer, sizeof(buffer))) ret.append(buffer, sizeof(buffer)); ret.append(buffer, in.gcount()); return ret; }

I did some benchmarking, and it turns out that the std::istreambuf_iterator technique (used by the accepted answer) is actually much slower. On gcc 4.4.5 with -O3, it's about a 4.5x difference on my machine, and the gap becomes wider with lower optimization settings.