Re: Optimizing

[email protected] wrote:
> I agree completely. once we're done with your plan, I'll be the first to
> advocate removing 60*. however, for the time being, we've got X version,
> and X+1 version thats faster. which would you prefer new users are 
> running, and judging gift based on?
>
> None of the rest of my work involves hard-coded fixed sizes. Rest
> assured, the rest is much more complex. ;)
>   

Good, good.

> have you read through the 70* and 80* patches? i'm commiting those as 
> well, and would like a technical commentary.
>
>   

I'm afraid that I have not. I am working on a bunch of other projects at
present (Damocles, new IR research, etc.) and keep swapping between
Perl, Java/Tomcat, C++ also. I am finding it hard to keep up :) I hope
to get to it soon, but I don't think I should be the bottleneck. If the
feature files you create are binary-identical, then the main issue
really is ability to compile across a variety of systems.

BTW, have you looked at asking for aligned memory when allocating
(*posix_memalign)*? I am told by the people here who need video
frame-rate processing here that it can give you a big speed-up. It would
be interesting to hear about.

Cheers,

David


-- 
Dr. David McG. Squire, Senior Lecturer. On sabbatical in 2006.
Caulfield School of Information Technology, Monash University, Australia
CRICOS Provider No. 00008C       http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~davids/