Re: For loop benchmarks between Octave versions

[Daniel J Sebald]

On 06/23/2014 01:42 PM, Julien Bect wrote:
> Le 22/06/2014 15:32, Julien Bect a écrit :
> > Le 17/06/2014 17:11, Julien Bect a écrit :
> > > > I don't much like having to manually match up new/delete, so I'd
> > > > rather see that go inside a constructor/destructor pair. Done
> > > > properly and with inlining, I don't see why it would be inefficient
> > > > and perhaps we could eliminate the BEGIN/END macros?
> > >
> > > I try that right now.
> >
> > John,
> >
> > As you know, using a constructor/destructor pair is actually what the
> > BEGIN/END macros currently do. I have tried improving this
> > constructor/destructor approach with inlining, but couldn't get a
> > significant improvement in this direction. Perhaps didn't I try hard
> > enough...
>
> Ok, I have tried harder and finally obtained a (significant ?) speed
> improvement using a constructor/destructor pair and templated classes
> (see attached patch).
[snip]

Looks good, especially this one:

> doubleForLoop/a+b 2084.3 [ 6.4] 1379.3 [ 1.0] evol: -33.8%

To clarify, in previous double-for-loop tests I used just the 
non-assigning result "1" rather than "a=1" to try and find a test that 
is as close as possible to pure for-loop dependent.  The "a=1" test does 
illustrate though a slow down when there is an operator involved, i.e., 
"a+b".

Dan