From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	MSGID_RANDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,99a6311c4195e21b
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>
Subject: RE: Matrix Multiplication
Date: 1999/12/19
Message-ID: <83hi9t$etn$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 562446591
References: <9BBB0C9AF506D311A68E00902745A537C236B1@fsxqpz04.usafa.af.mil>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x23.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun Dec 19 03:09:51 1999 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I)
Date: 1999-12-19T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article
<9BBB0C9AF506D311A68E00902745A537C236B1@fsxqpz04.usafa.af.mil>,
  comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org wrote:
> The idea that matrix multiplication would always be inlined
seems absurd to
> me.  The simple implementation has O(n^3) running time.  Any
enhancement
> requires a fair amount of code, which I surely wouldn't want
replicated
> every time I did a matrix multiply.  The overhead of a
function call, in
> this case, would be so small as to be negligible.


Of course the naive n**3 implementation is appallingly slow for
large matrices because of cache effects, no one would use this
for large arrays, and indeed the rather complex algorithms
that WOULD be used are quite unsuitable for inlining.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.