Re: Octave compared to Matlab

[Mario Storti]

>>>>> On Mon, 17 Aug 1998 23:26:03 -0500 (CDT), 
>>>>>      "John W. Eaton" <address@hidden> said:

> On 14-Aug-1998, Mario Storti <address@hidden> wrote:
> | > octave> ignore_function_time_stamp="all";
> | > octave> tic; for k=1:n;   c(k,:)=cross(a(k,:),b(k,:)); endfor; toc
> | > ans = 21
> | > octave> ignore_function_time_stamp="system";
> | > octave> tic; for k=1:n;   c(k,:)=cross(a(k,:),b(k,:)); endfor; toc
> | > ans = 21
> | 
> | BTW, apparently, time stamp checking is not too much comsuming in this
> | case.

> With Octave 2.0.13 (which you say you are using) the time stamps on .m
> files should only be checked at most once between the printing of a
> prompt, so I would expect similar results in both cases.

I see. 

> You may also be able to get more accurate CPU time results if you use
> the cputime function instead of tic and toc.  The cputime function
> measures CPU time used by Octave but tic and toc measure wall-clock
> time, which can be much different than the CPU time even on a
> moderately loaded system.

> jwe

Question: Is the time spent in checking a time stamp counted as CPU
time?

Mario