[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #53713] test failure "speed.m" in Octave 4.3.9
From: |
Hartmut |
Subject: |
[Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #53713] test failure "speed.m" in Octave 4.3.91 |
Date: |
Sun, 22 Apr 2018 16:55:02 -0400 (EDT) |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:59.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/59.0 |
Follow-up Comment #5, bug #53713 (project octave):
If have tested your suggestions from comment #3 on my Win7 machine.
Running this code:
for n=1:5
n
t1 = time; sum (rand (1e5, 1)); ta = time - t1
t1 = time; sum (rand (3e5, 1)); tb = time - t1
t1 = tic; sum (rand (1e5, 1)); tc = toc (t1)
endfor
produces the following results:
n = 1
ta = 0.0050001
tb = 0.014001
tc = 0.0043731
n = 2
ta = 0.0039999
tb = 0.014001
tc = 0.0043750
n = 3
ta = 0.0039999
tb = 0.015001
tc = 0.0053759
n = 4
ta = 0.0040009
tb = 0.014000
tc = 0.0043781
n = 5
ta = 0.0039999
tb = 0.015001
tc = 0.0043790
So, no, the results are not very close to the "zero" of a floating point type.
Is this some discrepancy to your current hypothesis?
And regarding your code on comment #4:
for n=1:10
t0 = time (); pause (0.001); t = time () - t0
endfor
gives:
t = 0.0010002
t = 0.0010009
t = 0.0010002
t = 0.0019999
t = 0.0010002
t = 0.00099993
t = 0.0010002
t = 0.00099993
t = 0.00099993
t = 0.0010002
So a threshold at t<0.001 does NOT seem to be a good idea to me.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?53713>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via/by Savannah
http://savannah.gnu.org/
- [Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #53713] test failure "speed.m" in Octave 4.3.91, Hartmut, 2018/04/21
- [Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #53713] test failure "speed.m" in Octave 4.3.91, Rik, 2018/04/21
- [Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #53713] test failure "speed.m" in Octave 4.3.91, Mike Miller, 2018/04/21
- [Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #53713] test failure "speed.m" in Octave 4.3.91, Mike Miller, 2018/04/21
- [Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #53713] test failure "speed.m" in Octave 4.3.91, Hartmut, 2018/04/21
- [Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #53713] test failure "speed.m" in Octave 4.3.91, Mike Miller, 2018/04/22
- [Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #53713] test failure "speed.m" in Octave 4.3.91, Mike Miller, 2018/04/22
- [Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #53713] test failure "speed.m" in Octave 4.3.91,
Hartmut <=
- [Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #53713] test failure "speed.m" in Octave 4.3.91, Rik, 2018/04/23
- [Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #53713] test failure "speed.m" in Octave 4.3.91, Rik, 2018/04/23
- [Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #53713] test failure "speed.m" in Octave 4.3.91, Hartmut, 2018/04/23
- [Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #53713] test failure "speed.m" in Octave 4.3.91, Rik, 2018/04/23
- [Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #53713] test failure "speed.m" in Octave 4.3.91, John W. Eaton, 2018/04/23
- [Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #53713] test failure "speed.m" in Octave 4.3.91, Rik, 2018/04/23
- [Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #53713] test failure "speed.m" in Octave 4.3.91, Rik, 2018/04/23
- [Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #53713] test failure "speed.m" in Octave 4.3.91, Mike Miller, 2018/04/23
- [Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #53713] test failure "speed.m" in Octave 4.3.91, Hartmut, 2018/04/23
- [Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #53713] test failure "speed.m" in Octave 4.3.91, Rik, 2018/04/23