delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: djgpp/2002/06/04/12:39:03

From: "Arash Salarian" <arash DOT salarian AT epfl DOT ch>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp,comp.lang.c++
References: <3CFCB642 DOT 252CFFF7 AT bigfoot DOT com>
Subject: Re: Optimization and operator&&
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 17:22:05 +0200
Lines: 39
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
NNTP-Posting-Host: metpc38.epfl.ch
Message-ID: <3cfcdb4a$1@epflnews.epfl.ch>
X-Trace: epflnews.epfl.ch 1023204170 metpc38.epfl.ch (4 Jun 2002 17:22:50 +0200)
Organization: EPFL
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

"Alex Vinokur" <alexvn AT bigfoot DOT com> wrote in message
news:3CFCB642 DOT 252CFFF7 AT bigfoot DOT com...
>
> ###############
> Windows98
> gcc/gpp 2.95.3
> ###############
>
>
> A program below measures performance (time) :
>   * of operator&& and operator+
>   * with automatic and static unsigned int
>   * with optimizations : No optimization, O1, O2, O3
>
> We can see that Optimization causes
>   an increase in elapsed time for operator&& .
> Any explanation?
>
> P.S Elapsed time of operator+ decreases.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> .....
>

Your solution of using systems "very low resolution" timer (which has
actually only a 55msec resolution) combined with very low iteration of the
main loop (only 1000 times) is the cause of this result. Try to re-write
your code with much higher iteration (more than 1 million at least) so that
the total execution time of the program becomes much much more in comparison
to 55msec resolution of the timer.....

hmmmmmm, but as I see, all this seems to be quite off topic here which is
Standard C++ language.....

Regards
Arash


- Raw text -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright © 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019