Re: For loop benchmarks between Octave versions

[Julien Bect]

Le 17/06/2014 16:49, John W. Eaton a écrit :
> On 06/17/2014 09:29 AM, Julien Bect wrote:
> > Le 17/06/2014 02:39, Rik a écrit :
> > > I find that this changeset:
> > >
> > > 12920:5d18231eee00 Extend profiling support to operators.
> > >
> > > produces a 50% slow down when using the for loop benchmark. Unless we
> > > can figure out a lower footprint way to do profiling we might be stuck
> > > with this part of the slowdown.
> >
> > The attached patch significantly improves the situation for me.
> >
> > On the gui-release branch, the runtime goes from 2.75 seconds to 2.16
> > seconds.
> >
> > Not a 50% improvement, though...
>
> Does declaring is_active "inline" really make a difference?  I'd be 
> surprised if that is not always inlined when the compiler is 
> performing inlining optimizations.

Yes, I have tried both, and it does make a (small) difference.

The main difference was obtained by calling profiler.is_active directly 
(2.75 -> 2.26, roughly).

The runtime dropped to 2.16 when I added inline.

> I don't much like having to manually match up new/delete, so I'd 
> rather see that go inside a constructor/destructor pair.  Done 
> properly and with inlining, I don't see why it would be inefficient 
> and perhaps we could eliminate the BEGIN/END macros?

I try that right now.