[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 1.5.0.5 (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.
Cheers,
David
--
Dr. David McG. Squire, Senior Lecturer. On sabbatical in 2006.
Caulfield School of Information Technology, Monash University, Australia
CRICOS Provider No. 00008C http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~davids/