On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 12:28:15PM -0700, Mike Stump wrote: > On Mar 22, 2007, at 9:13 AM, Doug Gregor wrote: > >8-bit tree code (baseline): > > > >real 0m51.987s > >user 0m41.283s > >sys 0m0.420s > > > >subcodes (this patch): > > > >real 0m53.168s > >user 0m41.297s > >sys 0m0.432s > > > >9-bit tree code (alternative): > > > >real 0m56.409s > >user 0m43.942s > >sys 0m0.429s > > I hate to ask, did we see the time for 16 bit codes? If it is faster > than subcodes (51-53), maybe we just take the 4.5% memory hit and > move on. I ask, as I'd hate to saddle everyone with subcodes in the > name of compile time, when there is any alternative that is better > that doesn't cost as much in compile time.
But these numbers show that subcodes don't cost *ANY* time, or the cost is in the noise, unless enable-checking is on. The difference in real-time seems to be an artifact, since the user and sys times are basically the same.
