Re: matlab/octave performance hit

[David Bateman]

John W. Eaton wrote:
> On 22-Oct-2007, David Bateman wrote:
>
> | David Bateman wrote:
> | > John could we and should we try to intercept tic/toc and cputime in the
> | > parser and hand the calculation off immediately to builtin versions of
> | > these functions like the attached?
> | >   
> | No need to change the parser. I just tried the attached patch that makes
> | tic, toc and cputime built-in functions.. The speed is then
> | 
> | octave:1> tic; toc
> | Elapsed time is 2.00272e-05 seconds.
> | 
> | and for the cumsum problem of Victor
> | 
> | octave:2> t=1:200;tic;cumsum(t);toc
> | Elapsed time is 0.000160933 seconds.
> | octave:3> t=1:200;tic;cumsum(t);toc
> | Elapsed time is 8.39233e-05 seconds.
> | 
> | Note the slower first call. This is much more acceptable.. It seems that
> | the function table code in Octave 2.9.x is slow except for builtins
> | (note cumsum is a built-in).. I wonder what the object branch with its
> | changed function table code can make of this issue. In any case, I'd
> | suggest applying the attached patch, to avoid as many as possible the
> | "Octave is too slow" comments..
>
> Please check in this change.
>
> Thanks,
>
> jwe
>
>   
Done.

D.

-- 
David Bateman                                address@hidden
Motorola Labs - Paris                        +33 1 69 35 48 04 (Ph) 
Parc Les Algorithmes, Commune de St Aubin    +33 6 72 01 06 33 (Mob) 
91193 Gif-Sur-Yvette FRANCE                  +33 1 69 35 77 01 (Fax) 

The information contained in this communication has been classified as: 

[x] General Business Information 
[ ] Motorola Internal Use Only 
[ ] Motorola Confidential Proprietary