On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 09:46:19PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > So for this to make sense, we'd need to feel that performance matters. We > *do* end up doing the gas use for each plot point, so it's not like this > function might not get called a lot. > > But compiler options will change the code generation even more than this > ever will, and aggressive compiler optimizations would have made the old > code better too (ie just inlining and CSE on the pressure power series > would do good things to the thing without this patch too). > > In other words: I think this patch is correct, and it *does* make the code > faster. But do we even care at this point?
Obviously, fewer computations are good. I semi-concur with Robert that we are over engineering this, but I think the rationale of using the virial form makes sense. So I'm inclined to take this patch as it both uses a more reasonable formula AND reduces computational complexity. /D _______________________________________________ subsurface mailing list [email protected] http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface
