octave-maintainers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: For loop benchmarks between Octave versions


From: PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
Subject: Re: For loop benchmarks between Octave versions
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2014 15:16:12 +0530

The same test case took 2.35s in 3.6.4 while it took around 3.9s in
3.7.5. So bisected Octave code between release 3.6.4 and 3.8.1.

CPU details:
Intel Core i5. Clock speed set to 1.2GHz.

The time taken to run the test case:
********************************************************************************
3.7.5 (did not note hg revision) -> 3.9s
16650:18d3c1b981e7 (3.7.3+) -> 4.13013s
16412:61989cde13ae (3.7.2+) -> 3.5439s
16295:4a1300ed5d3c (3.7.2+) -> 3.96383s
16216:70c47da7e02b (3.7.2+) -> 3.99449s
16183:359d56094efa (3.7.2+) -> 4.15015s
16168:8650eec57e9f (3.7.2+) -> 3.86547s
16161:b672afbb7c3c (3.7.2+) -> 4.06835s
16157:335041cc657a (3.7.2+) -> 4.06872s
16089:8a8e04aa3c98 (3.6.4) -> 2.34667s
16156:236be6179785 (3.7.2+) -> 3.85227s
********************************************************************************

Hg bisect result:
********************************************************************************
The first bad revision is:
changeset:   16156:236be6179785
parent:      16154:aa5e1e8dce66
parent:      16089:8a8e04aa3c98
user:        John W. Eaton <address@hidden>
date:        Thu Feb 28 02:25:44 2013 -0500
summary:     maint: periodic merge of stable to default

Not all ancestors of this changeset have been checked.
Use bisect --extend to continue the bisection from
the common ancestor, 6a44bb3c9593.
********************************************************************************

This result can be used to do further analysis.

Note:
I am continuing with the bisect further to find the change that causes
the regression.

Hope this helps,
PrasannaKumar



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]