[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: conv2 performance
From: |
John W. Eaton |
Subject: |
Re: conv2 performance |
Date: |
Wed, 3 Mar 2010 15:30:52 -0500 |
On 3-Mar-2010, Jaroslav Hajek wrote:
| On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 7:28 PM, Michael D. Godfrey
| <address@hidden> wrote:
| > Jaroslav,
| >
| > Here is what I got for 3 runs using the matlab shown
| > below, and following are 3 runs on the same machine
| > (Linux qss.stanford.edu 2.6.31.12-174.2.3.fc12.x86_64 #1 SMP Mon Jan 18
| > 19:52:07 UTC 2010 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux)
| > using your latest patches as of today (3 March).
| >
|
| Incl. this one, I suppose:
| http://hg.savannah.gnu.org/hgweb/octave/rev/5af0b4bb384d
Is there a particular reason to use Fortran for this with several
essentially repeated functions instead of a C++ template? I know the
BLAS routines are unique functions, but couldn't they be handled as
template parameters, similar to the way we handle the mapping
functions in the Array<T>::map methods?
jwe
- Re: conv2 performance, Jaroslav Hajek, 2010/03/01
- Re: conv2 performance, Jaroslav Hajek, 2010/03/02
- Re: conv2 performance, Jaroslav Hajek, 2010/03/02
- Re: conv2 performance, Jaroslav Hajek, 2010/03/03
- Re: conv2 performance, Michael D. Godfrey, 2010/03/03
- Re: conv2 performance, Jaroslav Hajek, 2010/03/03
- Re: conv2 performance,
John W. Eaton <=
- Re: conv2 performance, Michael D. Godfrey, 2010/03/03
- Re: conv2 performance, Jaroslav Hajek, 2010/03/04
- Re: conv2 performance, Michael Goffioul, 2010/03/04
- Re: conv2 performance, John W. Eaton, 2010/03/04
- Re: conv2 performance, Jaroslav Hajek, 2010/03/04
- Re: conv2 performance, John W. Eaton, 2010/03/04