1. Bizarro... ( Contest )
I ran profile_time on my competition entry, to see where I should try
and speed it up, and found a funny thing -
Placing 'with profile_time' reduced the time by 10-20%!
It had a >5mb input file, and the results were fairly consistent over
a few runs.
Rob, what have you got? Does profile_time pervert the time() function somehow?
--
MrTrick
2. Re: Bizarro... ( Contest )
I've noticed that very same thing a TON of times, andjust think it
regular behavior now.
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 00:35:07 +1000, Patrick Barnes <mrtrick at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I ran profile_time on my competition entry, to see where I should try
> and speed it up, and found a funny thing -
>
> Placing 'with profile_time' reduced the time by 10-20%!
> It had a >5mb input file, and the results were fairly consistent over
> a few runs.
>
> Rob, what have you got? Does profile_time pervert the time() function somehow?
> --
> MrTrick
>
>
3. Re: Bizarro... ( Contest )
Patrick Barnes wrote:
> I ran profile_time on my competition entry, to see where I should try
> and speed it up, and found a funny thing -
>
> Placing 'with profile_time' reduced the time by 10-20%!
> It had a >5mb input file, and the results were fairly consistent over
> a few runs.
>
> Rob, what have you got? Does profile_time pervert the time() function somehow?
When profile_time (DOS only) is in effect,
I have to keep track of time myself.
By default, I expect the system to interrupt me 100
times per second. On Windows ME/98/95 this seems to happen,
and the time is calculated correctly. On XP it looks like
the system may be neglecting to interrupt me as often as
it should. On a test I just tried, the elapsed time was off by 8%.
(on XP only). I guess XP's DOS emulation is a bit flaky around the
edges. I'll keep this in mind. Your profile results should still
be valid.
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
4. Re: Bizarro... ( Contest )
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 12:33:47 -0700, Robert Craig
<guest at rapideuphoria.com> wrote:
> On a test I just tried, the elapsed time was off by 8%.
> (on XP only). I guess XP's DOS emulation is a bit flaky around the
> edges. I'll keep this in mind. Your profile results should still
> be valid.
Okay, but I'm not too worried about the profile results.
Derek! Can I put 'with profile_time' in my code? 
--
MrTrick
5. Re: Bizarro... ( Contest )
Patrick Barnes wrote:
>
> Derek! Can I put 'with profile_time' in my code?
He's using "exw.exe," with which profile_time cannot be used anyway. :)
-=ck
"Programming in a state of EUPHORIA."
http://www.cklester.com/euphoria/
6. Re: Bizarro... ( Contest )
Oh! oops.
Actually, it runs a little faster under exw.exe, too... strange!
(although not as fast as the with profile_time)
I guess the control loop inside the windows version of the runtime
doesn't have as many things to check for, or something.
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 18:58:55 -0700, cklester <guest at rapideuphoria.com> wrote:
--
MrTrick
7. Re: Bizarro... ( Contest )
Patrick Barnes wrote:
>
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 12:33:47 -0700, Robert Craig
> <guest at rapideuphoria.com> wrote:
> > On a test I just tried, the elapsed time was off by 8%.
> > (on XP only). I guess XP's DOS emulation is a bit flaky around the
> > edges. I'll keep this in mind. Your profile results should still
> > be valid.
>
> Okay, but I'm not too worried about the profile results.
>
> Derek! Can I put 'with profile_time' in my code?
Good try But profile_time() doesn't work with Windows Eu.
--
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
