#Gnu octave devrement for loop code#

Re: For loop benchmarks between Octave versions, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan, 7.

Re: For loop benchmarks between Octave versions, Julien Bect, 6.

Re: For loop benchmarks between Octave versions, Daniel J Sebald, 5.

Re: For loop benchmarks between Octave versions, Julien Bect, 5.

Re: For loop benchmarks between Octave versions, Julien Bect, 8.

Re: For loop benchmarks between Octave versions, Daniel J Sebald, 4.

Re: For loop benchmarks between Octave versions, Julien Bect, 4.

Re: For loop benchmarks between Octave versions, (continued).

The last time I benchmarked this it was only a 10%ĭifference, rather than the 100% difference that the tests show. I'm re-compiling the gui-release branch withĪtomic refcounting disabled to see how much it improves things, but I don't The gui-release branch and other releases going forward isĬompiled with atomic refcounting which is necessary for the GUI, but does Unchanged from 3.6.4 to 3.8.1, and then another doubling on the gui-releaseīranch. There was a doubling in execution time from 3.4.3 to 3.6.4, mostly The versions are locally compiled on a Linux machine using roughly the same I stopped using it (I would expect this since the Linux kernel also triesįor performance reasons not to shift running jobs off of a core).

Octave process stayed on a single core, but it didn't make a difference so I experimented a bit with taskset to ensure the I fixed the CPU frequency before running the tests to avoid differences due Inefficient and slow, but at least they shouldn't get any worse than they

#Gnu octave devrement for loop code#

The test code in question is a double for loop. Test coverage for behavior, but it seems like another wish list item wouldīe a set of benchmarking tests so that we don't accidentally introduce I followed up one of the recent posts about differing performance between usr/local/src/octave/octave-for_loop_test/build-dev/src/.libs/5665-lt-octave-cli: usr/local/src/octave/octave-for_loop_test/build-dev/run-octave ***Unable to open file from non-user account with error: Greater than some hardcoded value, it might throw an error. One could compare the for-loop result against that.

Good measure of system speed (e.g., the processor speed or something), If there were some system command or script that could give a reasonably I suspect that is simply the fact that the core is running in a threadĪnd the process must distribute time between the GUI and worker threads.Ĥ) We could possibly devise a pass-fail speed test with this for-loop. Improvement in efficiency with version 3.4.3 that was lost already withģ) There is a loss associated with GUI/non-GUI within the same version. GUI release given the sporadic sampling of versions.Ģ) I'd say look as far back as 3.5/3.6 because there was a very good Release, but I wouldn't conclude that the slow down is attributed to the

Up until the GUI release and then a big jump associated with the GUI (See *** in results below.) I've reported a bugġ) Yes, something happened along the way to slow down looping or (more I've found a new account/permission error in compilation for the latestĭevelopment release. What you've found in terms of trends, with some discrepancy. Re: For loop benchmarks between Octave versions