Re: Is ther any sense in *= and matrices?

[Ole Kristensen <ole@linux.local>]

tmoran@acm.org writes:

> To summarize some of the benchmarks of A=A+B vs A+=B, 3x3 matrices, 10**7 iterations
> A=A+B  A+=B  ratio
> 55      19    2.9     Russ's special code on Sunblade, slightly faster than
>                       an 866MHz Pentium III according to
>                       http://www.phys.ocean.dal.ca/~kelley/linux/benchmark/benchmark_POM.html
> 4.4      3.3  1.3     MSVC++5.0 simple code on Tom's 866MHz Pentium III
> 1.4      0.8  1.6     Gnat 3.15p on Tom's 866MHz Pentium III
> 1.1      0.7  1.6     g++.5.8 (GCC) 3.2.2 using C templates on Hyman's "Sun workstation", speed unspecified
> 0.45     0.18 2.5     Ole-Hjalmar's machine ? gcc Ada or C the same?

Another data point: My old home PC, a 266MHz pentium II, compiler g++
3.2, Tom's simple C++ code:

ole@linux:~> time ./tmoran
Go 1000000 4460000 6320000
real    0m13.626s
user    0m10.800s
sys     0m0.000s

If I read the results correctly, it actually beats the SunBlade 2000,
which it definitely should not do. But there is much less of a
difference between + and += on this machine than on the fast machine
at work.  Maybe I should check the g++ version on my machine at work
once more.

Turning optimization off produces even less difference:

ole@linux:~> g++ -o tmoran tmoran.cc
ole@linux:~> !time
time ./tmoran
Go 1000000 12850000 14120000
real    0m34.219s
user    0m26.950s
sys     0m0.040s

Ole-Hj. Kristensen