X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
Date:	Wed, 18 Feb 2004 11:23:44 -0600
From:	Eric Rudd <rudd AT cyberoptics DOT com>
Subject:	Re: C99 Functions Under Development and Checkout
In-reply-to:	<403387DC.8080102@cyberoptics.com>
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Message-id:	<40339FA0.1070903@cyberoptics.com>
Organization:	CyberOptics
MIME-version:	1.0
X-Accept-Language:	en,pdf
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
References:	<c DOT 223440a1 DOT 2d5fdc07 AT aol DOT com> <40312BCC DOT 1080507 AT cyberoptics DOT com>
	<u4qtpj5tl DOT fsf AT elta DOT co DOT il> <403387DC DOT 8080102 AT cyberoptics DOT com>
X-MailScanner-Information:	Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner:	Found to be clean
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

Eric Rudd wrote:

> I doubt that the timings are completely consistent, but I modified an 
> FFT test harness to take the 2-D FFT an array of NaNs, and got the 
> following for a 1024-by-1024 array on a 550-MHz Pentium 3: Valid 
> floats, 30 ms; NaNs, 1.06 s -- a ratio of 35.  On a 1.7-GHz Pentium 4 
> there was even more of a difference: valid floats, 11 ms; NaNs, 2.6 s 
> -- a ratio of over 200. 

I just noticed an error in my earlier message.  These timings were for a 
256-by-256 array, not 1024-by-1024.  I had started to run the big array, 
but the NaN computation was taking so long that I got impatient, killed 
it, and ran the smaller problem.

-Eric

- Raw text -