On Feb 1, 2010, at 12:53 , David MacMahon wrote:
> I think I have accomplished the changes described in the thread
> quoted below. I still have some testing to do, but I'd appreciate
> any comments on my approach. Preliminary testing shows negligible
> (i.e. undetectable) effect on performance.
I think I have accomplished the changes described in the thread
quoted below. I still have some testing to do, but I'd appreciate
any comments on my approach. Preliminary testing shows negligible
(i.e. undetectable) effect on performance. Here is a summary of what
I did (a patch is avail
On Jan 6, 2010, at 23:14 , Maurice LeBrun wrote:
> My only suggestion is to not worry about the performance issues in
> function
> evaluation.. after all you've got a system call somewhere down the
> line to
> actually draw something. In my experience that's usually where the
> worst (and
On Jan 6, 2010, at 23:51 , Arjen Markus wrote:
> David, you should probably use these two as a starting point for your
> work.
Thanks, Arjen, I agree.
Dave
--
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Co
Hi David, Alan,
On 2010-01-07 07:43, David MacMahon wrote:
>
> I'm willing to try my hand at adapting some other functions to use
> this technique. As far as I can tell, the list of functions that
> could benefit from this are...
>
> c_plgriddata (*)
> c_plmesh (**)
> c_plmeshc (**)
> c_pl
On Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 22:43:44 (-0800) David MacMahon writes:
> On Jan 6, 2010, at 17:14 , Maurice LeBrun wrote:
>
> > Some centuries ago I did endow the contourer with the function
> > evaluator
> > technique to deal with the issue of C vs Fortran vs whatever array
> > storag
On Jan 6, 2010, at 17:14 , Maurice LeBrun wrote:
> Some centuries ago I did endow the contourer with the function
> evaluator
> technique to deal with the issue of C vs Fortran vs whatever array
> storage.
> Worked out nicely IMO. Would've liked to upgrade all array-
> handling functions
> i
On Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 17:00:40 (-0800) David MacMahon writes:
> Hi, Alan,
>
> On Jan 6, 2010, at 9:03 , Alan W. Irwin wrote:
>
> > If we have a mixture of C and Fortran ordering for the two-dimensional
> > arrays in our API, we should decide which convention we should use
> >
Hi, Alan,
On Jan 6, 2010, at 9:03 , Alan W. Irwin wrote:
> If we have a mixture of C and Fortran ordering for the two-dimensional
> arrays in our API, we should decide which convention we should use
> in our
> API and convert to it if/when we decide to do other major API
> breakage we
> have
On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 09:03:42 -0800 (PST)
"Alan W. Irwin" wrote:
>
> Arjen, from the fortran wrappers do we use the C order
>for all our
> two-dimensional arrays or just for the plsurf3d related
>functions?
>
> If we have a mixture of C and Fortran ordering for the
>two-dimensional
> arrays i
On 2010-01-06 09:31+0100 Arjen Markus wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> while I suffer from the same type of dyslexia (even after all these
> years I still have trouble getting the indices right and frequently
> have to sketch what the layout of the data is and what it should be,
> using Fortran, C and a cou
Hi, Arjen,
On Jan 6, 2010, at 0:31 , Arjen Markus wrote:
> while I suffer from the same type of dyslexia (even after all these
> years I still have trouble getting the indices right and frequently
> have to sketch what the layout of the data is and what it should be,
> using Fortran, C and a coup
Hi David,
while I suffer from the same type of dyslexia (even after all these
years I still have trouble getting the indices right and frequently
have to sketch what the layout of the data is and what it should be,
using Fortran, C and a couple of other languages), I must point out
that plsurf3d u
13 matches
Mail list logo
