Quote:
Originally Posted by deimos
What? You want me to give you a written example?
|
No. If i could write a program which can measure the runtime of an external program, then i could've done this myself too. I just wanted to point out, that since you are so obsessed in convincing me in this matter, the amount of time you invested into convincing, would be enough to directly provide countermeasures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by deimos
I'm here to help, not to do it for you.
|
Help? By futilely trolling me with useless "advices" about switching to windows and calling me things if i don't? Since i've asked about the availability of GCC 8.3 on other platforms (without any backward intentions; i've just asked if there is a version i could use), you're really triggered by this, at least you're giving this impression by your remarks...
Quote:
Originally Posted by deimos
Ah well, you see, that's the thing you don't seem to be understanding. It was never about precision, it was about accuracy. If I could draw you a graph here I would.
|
You can. You draw an image and link it here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by deimos
But I urge you to just invest the effort on getting rid of this thing that's measuring from the outside and get yourself into the position where you know the constant time bit vs the bit that driven by algorithm / implementation choices. Because you've not shared analysable numbers I have to go by gut, but I don't believe the percentage numbers you've been sharing really represent the improvement that's been made.
|
I already conceded, that the percentages may not be the closest to reality, but still: what if we measure it directly and it turns out, that the gain was not 3.4%, but 3.6 or 3.2? You claim, that the gain may be much more. Please name one sane reason, what and how would cause that big hiccup outside the loop, which would only occur when i use the assembly routine posted here?