POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.beta-test : Restructured Parser wants Testing : Re: Restructured Parser wants Testing Server Time
5 May 2024 01:08:46 EDT (-0400)
  Re: Restructured Parser wants Testing  
From: Stephen
Date: 23 May 2018 10:38:56
Message: <5b057d00@news.povray.org>
On 23/05/2018 13:55, clipka wrote:
> Am 23.05.2018 um 10:22 schrieb Stephen:
> 
>> Test:
>>
>> v 3.8.0-alpha.9475849+av541.msvc14 is faster than
>> v 3.8.0-x. tokenizer.9999+av5 60.msvc
>>
>> On the second run of the file. The parse time was a second or two slower
>> than the first time. Except when using Ver 3.7 when it was the same.
> 
> I take that as good news, presuming the scene in question does call
> macros across files. Such a scenario would explain the superior
> performance of v3.8.0-alpha over v3.7.0 as the result of macro caching,
> as well as the inferior performance of v3.8.0-x.tokenizer vs.
> v3.8.0-alpha as the result of disabled macro caching.
> 

Sorry it does not use macros. It did but I de-constructed the grass 
macro it was using as it was declaring an array of meshes from within a 
while loop. [Watch the memory usage rise and the HDD thrash.]


I have already had jr complain that I sent him the code in one file and 
not split into include files.
So, what is wrong with 54317 lines in one file, anyway? ;-)


> What really excites me is the superior performance of v3.8.0-x.tokenizer
> over v3.7.0. It means that with macro caching re-enabled it should not
> only break even with, but actually surpass, v3.8.0-alpha performance.
> 
> Mind you, I haven't even started with the actual speed improvements that
> I am aiming for. All I've been doing so far was adding structure (and
> thus potential overhead) to the parser while trying to minimize added
> overhead. Apparently I've actually reduced some existing overhead along
> the way.
> 


-- 

Regards
     Stephen


Post a reply to this message

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.