Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 21 May 2008 10:54:15 +0200 (CEST) | From | Soumyadip Das Mahapatra <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] bitreversal program |
| |
On Tue, 20 May 2008, Benoit Boissinot wrote:
> A quick benchmarking (that you should have done at least one your > computer gives for 100000000 iterations): > old: > real 0m1.631s > user 0m1.628s > sys 0m0.004s > > new: > real 0m5.553s > user 0m5.540s > sys 0m0.004s > > So I guess there's no need to discuss this further.
Sorry to disturb you again. But i tested my code against Akinobu's one and the test result shows my code takes less cpu time than that of Akinobu's. Here is the code i used to determine performance -- #include<stdio.h> #include<time.h>
int main() { int i = 100000000; printf("%ld\n", (long)clock()); for(; i>0; i--) { bitrev32(0x00face32); } printf("%ld", (long)clock()); } -- OUTPUT: [using Akinobu's bitrev32()] 0 6010000
[using my bitrev32()] 0 3990000
And using bitrev8() instead of bitrev32() the result gives the output like this: [using Akinobu's bitrev8()] 0 770000
[using my bitrev8()] 0 2360000
My processor is 1.4 GHz one. I am not forcing you to review my code( or i've no expectation of inclusion of it ) but its just a curiousity: what is truth behind the output.
Regards, Soumya
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
| |