[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Changeset} Re: cellfunc vs cell2mat speed?
From: |
John W. Eaton |
Subject: |
Re: [Changeset} Re: cellfunc vs cell2mat speed? |
Date: |
Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:55:48 -0400 |
On 15-Sep-2008, David Bateman wrote:
| John W. Eaton wrote:
| > On 10-Sep-2008, David Bateman wrote:
| >
| > | I'd suggest something like teh attached changeset that improves the
| > | speed but keeps teh code compatible.
| >
| > Thanks, I applied it along with the additional change you sent
| > off the list. The combined change is attached below as a single
| > changeset.
| >
| > jwe
| >
| >
|
| Thinking about this further we should in fact have single type
| concatenation specializations in Fcat as well in the same manner as in
| pt-mat.cc. The attached patch does this and then reworks cell2mat again
| for even better speed.
I applied this changeset.
Thanks,
jwe
- cellfunc vs cell2mat speed?, Levente Torok, 2008/09/09
- Re: cellfunc vs cell2mat speed?, David Bateman, 2008/09/09
- Re: cellfunc vs cell2mat speed?, Levente Torok, 2008/09/09
- Re: cellfunc vs cell2mat speed?, David Bateman, 2008/09/09
- Re: cellfunc vs cell2mat speed?, Levente Torok, 2008/09/09
- Re: cellfunc vs cell2mat speed?, David Bateman, 2008/09/09
- [Changeset} Re: cellfunc vs cell2mat speed?, David Bateman, 2008/09/09
- [Changeset} Re: cellfunc vs cell2mat speed?, John W. Eaton, 2008/09/11
- Re: [Changeset} Re: cellfunc vs cell2mat speed?, David Bateman, 2008/09/15
- Re: [Changeset} Re: cellfunc vs cell2mat speed?,
John W. Eaton <=
- Re: [Changeset} Re: cellfunc vs cell2mat speed?, dbateman, 2008/09/17
- Re: [Changeset} Re: cellfunc vs cell2mat speed?, John W. Eaton, 2008/09/17