[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Very slow filter.cc
From: |
Miroslaw Kwasniak |
Subject: |
Re: Very slow filter.cc |
Date: |
Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:20:52 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i |
On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 09:45:37AM +0100, David Bateman wrote:
>
> t = cputime; y = filter(b,1,x); cputime - t
>
> rather than using tic/toc and see if there is better consistency between
> 2.0.17 and the 2.1.x versions...
$ sh run.sh
OCTAVE_VERSION = 2.0.17
ans = 2.0600
OCTAVE_VERSION = 2.1.50
ans = 15.380
OCTAVE_VERSION = 2.1.57
ans = 15.690
OCTAVE_VERSION = 2.1.63
ans = 14.060
2.1.63 is a little better because it's compiled for 686 - rest are debian
386 packages.
> If the problem remains, the next step woul dbe to profile the two
> versions of octave to figure out what is taking the time. Though that is
> likely to take a lot of effort...
I tried with LD_PROFILE but octave has PROF signal disabled :(
I would supprised if 2.0 is compilable with current tools.
Mirek
-------------------------------------------------------------
Octave is freely available under the terms of the GNU GPL.
Octave's home on the web: http://www.octave.org
How to fund new projects: http://www.octave.org/funding.html
Subscription information: http://www.octave.org/archive.html
-------------------------------------------------------------
- Re: Very slow filter.cc, David Bateman, 2005/01/15
- Re: Very slow filter.cc, akira, 2005/01/17
- Re: Very slow filter.cc, David Bateman, 2005/01/19
- Re: Very slow filter.cc, Miroslaw Kwasniak, 2005/01/22
- Re: Very slow filter.cc, John W. Eaton, 2005/01/22
- Re: Very slow filter.cc, Michael Creel, 2005/01/24
- Re: Very slow filter.cc, Miroslaw Kwasniak, 2005/01/24
- Re: Very slow filter.cc, David Bateman, 2005/01/24