Re: [Gegl-developer] VIPS and GEGL performance and memory usage comparison

2016-02-02 Thread Øyvind Kolås
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 10:35 PM, Daniel Rogers wrote: >>> * Anyone can do dynamic compilation nowadays with llvm. Imagine >>> >>> taking the gegl dynamic tree, and compiling it into a single LLVM >>> dynamically compiled function. >> >> What exactly do you

Re: [Gegl-developer] VIPS and GEGL performance and memory usage comparison

2016-02-01 Thread Sven Claussner
Hi Daniel, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I agree with you in many points. On 29.1.2016 at 5:37 PM Daniel Rogers wrote: * Anyone can do dynamic compilation nowadays with llvm. Imagine taking the gegl dynamic tree, and compiling it into a single LLVM dynamically compiled

Re: [Gegl-developer] VIPS and GEGL performance and memory usage comparison

2016-02-01 Thread Daniel Rogers
On Feb 1, 2016 12:40 PM, "Sven Claussner" wrote: > On 29.1.2016 at 5:37 PM Daniel Rogers wrote: >> >> * Anyone can do dynamic compilation nowadays with llvm. Imagine >> >> taking the gegl dynamic tree, and compiling it into a single LLVM >> dynamically compiled

Re: [Gegl-developer] VIPS and GEGL performance and memory usage comparison

2016-01-29 Thread Øyvind Kolås
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Sven Claussner wrote: > On 28.1.2016 at 10:29 PM Daniel Rogers wrote: >> I am confused. What technical reason exists to assume gegl cannot be as >> fast as vips? Is it memory usage? Extra necessary calculations? Some way >> in which

Re: [Gegl-developer] VIPS and GEGL performance and memory usage comparison

2016-01-29 Thread Daniel Rogers
On Jan 29, 2016 6:20 AM, "Øyvind Kolås" wrote: > > GEGL is doing single precision 32bit floating point processing for all > operations, thus should not introduce the type of quantization > problems 8bpc/16bpc pipelines introduce for multiple filters - at the > expense of much

Re: [Gegl-developer] VIPS and GEGL performance and memory usage comparison

2016-01-29 Thread jcupitt
Hello all, vips maintainer here, thank you for this interesting discussion. On 29 January 2016 at 16:37, Daniel Rogers wrote: > A fast 8 bit pipeline is great for previews or single operation stacks, or > when accuracy is not as important for the user. My feeling is

Re: [Gegl-developer] VIPS and GEGL performance and memory usage comparison

2016-01-29 Thread Adam Bavier
As someone new to the gegl development list and seeing the performance numbers in that benchmark, I propose adding a asterisk * by each gegl number would help the reader understand that something is different with this library. Then add the corresponding asterisk down by the statement, "GEGL is

Re: [Gegl-developer] VIPS and GEGL performance and memory usage comparison

2016-01-28 Thread Daniel Rogers
Hi Sven, I am confused. What technical reason exists to assume gegl cannot be as fast as vips? Is it memory usage? Extra necessary calculations? Some way in which parallelism is not as possible? -- Daniel On Jan 28, 2016 12:58 PM, "Sven Claussner" wrote: > Hi, > > the

Re: [Gegl-developer] VIPS and GEGL performance and memory usage comparison

2016-01-28 Thread Sven Claussner
On 28.1.2016 at 10:29 PM Daniel Rogers wrote: > Hi Sven, > > I am confused. What technical reason exists to assume gegl cannot be as > fast as vips? Is it memory usage? Extra necessary calculations? Some way > in which parallelism is not as possible? Hi Daniel, you might have misunderstood