Re: icefox tests issues

On Thursday 21 of October 2004 10:27, Juergen Pfennig wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 October 2004 21:47, Simon Perreault wrote:
> > Raul's results are very unsurprising and should be integrated with much
> > rejoicing.
>
> Ok, I was always tinking of simple types. I am not a friend of operator
> overloading in C++.
>
> But a factor of 5 (2 instead of 10s) just by removing some postfix
> increments?

 I agree. The results are very surprising, and most likely wrong. It would 
mean that just changing it++ to ++it in a loop removes 80% of executed code 
from the loop. It can make things faster, but such big improvement is hard to 
believe.

 I suggest you repeat the test with exactly the same conditions for both of 
the variants (i.e. reboot, do the test; change to the other variant, reboot, 
do the test exactly the same way).

-- 
Lubos Lunak
KDE developer
---------------------------------------------------------------------
SuSE CR, s.r.o.  e-mail: [email protected] , [email protected]
Drahobejlova 27  tel: +420 2 9654 2373
190 00 Praha 9   fax: +420 2 9654 2374
Czech Republic   http://www.suse.cz/