Re: Contest Update (12-Nov-2004)
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 21:39:22 +0000, Chris Bensler <bensler at nt.net>
wrote:
>The first bit of code checks the 'state' of the variable. It checks
> an internal flag, not the value of the variable.
Sorry, I think you *completely* misunderstood the question.
(my fault, probably)
The maths just on the "if" part is:
first: 5.08% * 3.8 = 0.19304 seconds
second: 1.08% * 6.8=0.07344 seconds.
(at least that is what with profile_time repeatedly tells me)
What that tells me (I need to test this I guess) is that "atom()" is
in fact slower that "=0" (anyway).
Nevertheless, if I "lost" on that test, I would accept it, but bear
the above numbers in mind.
>
>The second bit of code checks the value of the variable and does a
>comparison.
>
But both line 1 + line 2 together (as the only changes) account, at
most, for 0.3648 seconds, and, in the case I think would be faster,
but ain't, 0.09656 seconds.
(again, that is what with profile_time repeatedly tells me)
All other lines being equal, where has the extra *3* whole seconds of
runtime (78%) come from?
Would you be happy that changing one line from "atom()" to "=0" nearly
doubles the runtime? If it did, would you like to know why? I do!
I know you can't second-guess my code, I probably need to work on
making a simpler case exhibit the same effect, which just may never
have been noticed by anyone else, ever, before, but I kinda doubted,
and hoped against that.
Regards,
Pete
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
