|
From: | John W. Eaton |
Subject: | Re: QtHandles and performance |
Date: | Thu, 09 Jan 2014 16:37:58 -0500 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20131005 Icedove/17.0.9 |
On 01/09/2014 04:30 PM, Rik wrote:
On 01/09/2014 12:06 PM, address@hidden wrote:
Do we need to re-measure the performance penalty before we can make an informed decision, or are we confident in the 10% number?
Measuring again is probably a good idea. I compiled with optimization enabled (default -O2 for GCC) and timed running the test suite to compare.
If the performance penalty is only associated with displaying graphics objects, and not pure math functions, then is this pretty much acceptable? Graphics are measured on a human time scale, hundreds of milliseconds to actual seconds, rather than the microseconds of inner loops so there is abundant headroom for some slowdown.
Reference counting happens pretty much everywhere in Octave. If you make reference counting slower, you'll make pretty much all of Octave slower, not just graphics operations. Sure, the library calls to things like BLAS are not affected, but the general speed of the interpreter is.
jwe
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |