From: Michael Stevens (mail_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-18 03:25:32
On Saturday 18 June 2005 03:47, christopher diggins wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Stevens" <mail_at_[hidden]>
> >> I'd like to point how few lines of code are in the implementation I
> >> supplied (when compared to the ublas monstrosity), and the fact that
> >> there
> >> are many optimizations which weren't done (which is why I kept calling
> >> it a
> >> "naive" implementation).
> > The naive implementation is not faster! I have appended results for the
> > 'bench1 100'. This compares uBLAS dense vector matrices with naive
> > implementations.
> You can't refute my results by posting results from an entirely different
> set of classes! Clearly not all 'naive' implementations are created equal
> are they?
Not sure what to say at this point. I'm trying to see why we are seeing
divergent results. You are not being helpful.
Normally uBLAS achieves results comparable to explicity written evaluation
loops on C arrays. You are not seeing this which as I say is rather odd.
Bench1 is a useful standard test where we could compare results. I posted the
results so we can compare.