On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 12:42:04AM -0700, Søren Hauberg wrote:
> tor, 13 05 2010 kl. 23:09 +0200, skrev Alois Schlögl:
> > (i) n(k)+=1; is preferred over n(k)++ for two reasons
> > ------------------------------------------------
> > 1) the former is faster
> > octave:36> N=1e6;
> > octave:37> tic;n=0;for k=1:N, n++;end;toc;
> > Elapsed time is 0.48 seconds.
> > octave:38> tic;n=0;for k=1:N, n+=1;end;toc;
> > Elapsed time is 0.26 seconds.
>
> Odd. This looks like something that should be improved in Octave. Would
> you care to file a bug?
With today's tip, there's no difference:
octave:1> N=1e6
N = 1000000
octave:2> tic; n=0; for k = 1:N, n++; end ; toc
Elapsed time is 0.39661813 seconds.
octave:3> tic; n=0; for k = 1:N, n+=1; end ; toc
Elapsed time is 0.40200591 seconds.
octave:4> version
ans = 3.3.51+
Cheers,
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Octave-dev mailing list
Octave-dev@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev
