[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I agree completely. once we're done with your plan, I'll be the first to > advocate removing 60*. however, for the time being, we've got X version, > and X+1 version thats faster. which would you prefer new users are > running, and judging gift based on? > > None of the rest of my work involves hard-coded fixed sizes. Rest > assured, the rest is much more complex. ;) >
Good, good. > have you read through the 70* and 80* patches? i'm commiting those as > well, and would like a technical commentary. > > I'm afraid that I have not. I am working on a bunch of other projects at present (Damocles, new IR research, etc.) and keep swapping between Perl, Java/Tomcat, C++ also. I am finding it hard to keep up :) I hope to get to it soon, but I don't think I should be the bottleneck. If the feature files you create are binary-identical, then the main issue really is ability to compile across a variety of systems. BTW, have you looked at asking for aligned memory when allocating (*posix_memalign)*? I am told by the people here who need video frame-rate processing here that it can give you a big speed-up. It would be interesting to hear about. Cheers, David -- Dr. David McG. Squire, Senior Lecturer. On sabbatical in 2006. Caulfield School of Information Technology, Monash University, Australia CRICOS Provider No. 00008C http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~davids/ _______________________________________________ help-GIFT mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gift
