>> Wait, there's a bug in icc? I didn't realize we were getting bad
>> output from vsmoother; I just assumed that you'd turned off vsmoother
>> optimization because it was excruciatingly slow. ;-)
>
> I'm interested in knowing as well. I saw that note the other day and
> just figured that ther
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Kirk, Benjamin (JSC-EG)
wrote:
>
>>> Wait, there's a bug in icc? I didn't realize we were getting bad
>>> output from vsmoother; I just assumed that you'd turned off vsmoother
>>> optimization because it was excruciatingly slow. ;-)
>>
>> I'm interested in knowin
On Feb 16, 2009, at 2:09 PM, Roy Stogner wrote:
> Wait, there's a bug in icc? I didn't realize we were getting bad
> output from vsmoother; I just assumed that you'd turned off vsmoother
> optimization because it was excruciatingly slow. ;-)
I'm interested in knowing as well. I saw that note t
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009, Kirk, Benjamin (JSC-EG) wrote:
>
>> I just noticed this (from Ben) in the recent changelogs. While I
>> admit that the savings of "not optimizing vsmoother when most users
>> don't use it" probably vastly exceed the costs of running a
>> non-optimized vsmoother... wouldn't
> I just noticed this (from Ben) in the recent changelogs. While I
> admit that the savings of "not optimizing vsmoother when most users
> don't use it" probably vastly exceed the costs of running a
> non-optimized vsmoother... wouldn't making --disable-vsmoother the
> default be a better option?
I just noticed this (from Ben) in the recent changelogs. While I
admit that the savings of "not optimizing vsmoother when most users
don't use it" probably vastly exceed the costs of running a
non-optimized vsmoother... wouldn't making --disable-vsmoother the
default be a better option? Then use
