Thanks. Do create a PR. -viral
> On 06-Jan-2015, at 1:53 am, [email protected] wrote: > > I meant randbool() in v0.3, where it was a more direct call, not randbool() > in v0.4. > Anyway, I just found the problem and patched it. Adding one '@inline' now > makes rand(Bool) in v0.4 > about as fast as randbool() in v0.3. > > Should I open an issue (bug report), or just make a PR ? > > On Monday, January 5, 2015 8:59:02 PM UTC+1, Viral Shah wrote: > I doubt that rand(Bool) is any slower, since randbool() calls rand(Bool). It > is worth filing this as a performance regression. > > -viral > > On Monday, January 5, 2015 9:41:45 PM UTC+5:30, [email protected] wrote: > It may be in part the implementation of the RNG. I think it is also in part > whether the abstraction is optimized away. > Notice that Julia v0.3 is faster than v0.4. This is probably randbool() vs. > rand(Bool). > > On Monday, January 5, 2015 4:50:56 PM UTC+1, Isaiah wrote: > Very neat. Just in case this gets posted to the interwebz, it is worth > pointing out that the performance advantage for Julia can probably be > explained by differences in the underlying RNG. We use dsFMT, which is known > to be one of (if not the?) fastest MT libraries around. I could not find any > published comparisons in a quick google, but based on this test harness [1], > dsFMT may be significantly faster than std::mt19937: > > ``` > ihnorton@julia:~/tmp/cpp-random-test$ ./random-real > C++11 : 2.34846 > Boost : 0.371674 > dSFMT : 0.281255 > GSL : 0.649981 > ``` > > [1] https://github.com/yomichi/cpp-random-test > > > On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 10:12 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Oh, and, (I forgot to mention!) the Julia code runs much faster. > > > On Monday, January 5, 2015 3:56:07 PM UTC+1, [email protected] wrote: > Hi, here is a comparison of Julia and C++ for simulating a random walk. > > It is the first Julia program I wrote. I just pushed it to github. > > --John > >
