Warp wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> How do the ugly C code and your clean implementation compare in terms of
>> performance? Pure curiosity.
> 
>   The C++ version generates approximately 151M numbers/s, while the
> original C version generates, in the same conditions, approximately 167M
> numbers/s.

  Oops, scratch that. The conditions were not the same, after all (I had
configured the two versions to use differently sized arrays).

  Configuring both to use the exact same settings resulted in both being
equally fast (that is, approximately 151M numbers/s), so there's no
difference in speed. (I didn't expect there to be.)

  (Curiously, though, this showed me that increasing the array used by
the algorithm, while it requires more memory, makes the algorithm
slightly faster. More precisely increasing the array size from 16 ints
to 256 ints makes the algorithm about 10% faster.)

Post a reply to this message