[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [help-GIFT] Optimizing

From: David Squire
Subject: Re: [help-GIFT] Optimizing
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 19:00:12 +0100
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20060725)

address@hidden wrote:
> I agree completely. once we're done with your plan, I'll be the first to
> advocate removing 60*. however, for the time being, we've got X version,
> and X+1 version thats faster. which would you prefer new users are 
> running, and judging gift based on?
> None of the rest of my work involves hard-coded fixed sizes. Rest
> assured, the rest is much more complex. ;)

Good, good.

> have you read through the 70* and 80* patches? i'm commiting those as 
> well, and would like a technical commentary.

I'm afraid that I have not. I am working on a bunch of other projects at
present (Damocles, new IR research, etc.) and keep swapping between
Perl, Java/Tomcat, C++ also. I am finding it hard to keep up :) I hope
to get to it soon, but I don't think I should be the bottleneck. If the
feature files you create are binary-identical, then the main issue
really is ability to compile across a variety of systems.

BTW, have you looked at asking for aligned memory when allocating
(*posix_memalign)*? I am told by the people here who need video
frame-rate processing here that it can give you a big speed-up. It would
be interesting to hear about.



Dr. David McG. Squire, Senior Lecturer. On sabbatical in 2006.
Caulfield School of Information Technology, Monash University, Australia
CRICOS Provider No. 00008C

reply via email to

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