Oh, sorry. I did get confused. I didn't see you had "SDMP-Core2" written in your benchmark table. I hadn't realised you were quoting sdmp times.
Bill. On 14 May, 21:19, Francesco Biscani <bluesca...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Bill, > > On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Bill Hart <goodwillh...@googlemail.com> > wrote: > > If I make a couple of simplifications, namely assume that the output > > fits into two limbs, and that none of the polynomials has length > > > 2^32 - 1, etc, I get pretty good times, certainly better than reported > > in Francesco's paper. I also don't know if any assumptions about the > > coefficients being unsigned are made in any of the benchmarks. That > > would further reduce the times, etc. > > Just for the record, in the paper the only integer coefficients I > consider in the benchmarks are plain out-of-the-box GMP mpz types > (well, the C++ interface to them to be precise :). So I imagine that > such coefficients will incur in a lot of overhead, from heap > allocation to function calling overhead, suboptimal cache usage from > random memory accesses etc. > > For my own purposes, right now I'm mostly interested in > double-precision floating point real and complex coefficients, but I > do intend to perform benchmarks/optimisation on fixed-width > multi-precision integers in the future. > > Cheers, > > Francesco. > > -- > To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to > sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel > URL:http://www.sagemath.org -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
