jancsika at yahoo.com
Mon Oct 5 22:02:52 CEST 2015
Kind of off topic, but...If we're just talking about iterating through an array, how could hand-optimized assemblerpossibly beat a modern compiler?
On Monday, October 5, 2015 1:40 PM, IOhannes m zmölnig <zmoelnig at iem.at> wrote:
On 10/05/2015 05:39 PM, Christof Ressi wrote:
> You're right that it's easy to implement as an abstraction but I was rather thinking about execution speed.
> I guess a fictional object like [array drip] that would just iterate through the array using a C loop would be the fastest possible method.
well no: the fastest possible way would probably be hand-optimized
> I don't see how you could even get close to that with abstractions, especially when using only vanilla objects.
i don't think that in practice this would matter though.
an [array-drip]¹ implementation in Pd-vanilla should be O(n).
an [array drip] implementation in C should be O(n).
sure, the abstraction implementation will perform worse by a (constant)
factor but the complexity stays the same which is the important part.
i assume that the cases where you do need that extra speed boost are
rather seldom, and do not warrant an extra built-in object.
¹ it always causes me pain to see the name "drip" used so widely.
Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pd-list