Hi.
> > [...]
>
> I've allowed myself to adapt your code to an array version of the
> accurate "linearCombination" (committed in revision 1154416).
>
> Here is a micro-benchmark (for an array of length 3):
> -----
> linearCombination (runs per timed block: 10000, timed blocks: 1000)
> direct inline: 1.789185e-05 (1.580520e-05) ms
> direct array: 2.009243e-05 (1.257636e-05) ms
> accurate inline: 4.244761e-05 (5.882379e-05) ms
> accurate array: 9.365895e-05 (6.902221e-05) ms
> -----
Mre efficient implementation in revision 1154485:
-----
linearCombination (runs per timed block: 10000, timed blocks: 1000)
direct inline: 1.899314e-05 (5.587518e-05) ms
direct array: 1.918198e-05 (1.133822e-05) ms
accurate inline: 4.178593e-05 (5.697845e-05) ms
accurate array: 7.144897e-05 (3.897243e-05) ms
-----
However, I'm concerned that the "stress" test ("testLinearCombination1")
taken from your test case for Vector3D might not be stringent enough. [I
think that while changing my implemementation, the test was still passing
just before I dicovered that I was using an unitialized (set to 0 by
default) variable.]
Could you devise one sure to detect bugs like this (i.e. where all the
various variables in "linearCombination" would be significant)?
Best,
Gilles
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
