On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 02:12:38PM -0800, Paul Ramsey wrote:
Not sure what this means, but:
3.1 3.2
Files: 20Files: 58
Tests: 2216 Tests: 3582
Failed: 0Failed: 0
Maxime van Noppen wrote:
I will post any numbers I get.
I'm still far from having a solid and complete report but just to give
you a taste : on 100 intersections dynamic allocations represent 25.01%
of the time cost (17.14% spent allocating, 7.87% deallocating).
I've also found several small
On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 05:13:15PM +0100, Maxime van Noppen wrote:
Maxime van Noppen wrote:
I will post any numbers I get.
I'm still far from having a solid and complete report but just to give
you a taste : on 100 intersections dynamic allocations represent 25.01%
of the time cost (17.14%
strk wrote:
CoordinateArraySequence::getAt is a virtual function, which is probably
the reason why the fully templated solution is much faster instead.
How can a virtual method be inlined by the compiler ?
Obviously it can't. I just missed the fact it was virtual because it's
not declared
strk wrote:
On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 05:13:15PM +0100, Maxime van Noppen wrote:
Maxime van Noppen wrote:
I will post any numbers I get.
I'm still far from having a solid and complete report but just to give
you a taste : on 100 intersections dynamic allocations represent 25.01%
of the time
