On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi
>
> I try your solutions and here are the results:
>
> 1.) TIP: set text buffer higher (using settextbuf) -> RESULT: procedure
> breaks later
> 2.) TIP: use flush() after writeln() -> RESULT: procedure breaks on first
> flush()
> 3.) TIP: co
On 21 jun 2007, at 19:12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I try your solutions and here are the results:
1.) TIP: set text buffer higher (using settextbuf) -> RESULT:
procedure breaks later
2.) TIP: use flush() after writeln() -> RESULT: procedure breaks on
first flush()
3.) TIP: convert first fl
Hi
I try your solutions and here are the results:
1.) TIP: set text buffer higher (using settextbuf) -> RESULT: procedure breaks
later
2.) TIP: use flush() after writeln() -> RESULT: procedure breaks on first
flush()
3.) TIP: convert first float to text and then put it out -> RESULT: the same
> I know, programs with a writeln() have lower performance, but
> I think, printf() and writeln() must do the same. This need time to
> calculate.
You have to explain problem more.
The key thing to do is find your bottleneck. Write some benchmarks for float to
string conversions
and put them in
> Adrian Wrote:
> no - that was not the problem. I have my linux running in a coLinux
> > session and it seems that the linker fails, when the file is in a
> > windows drive, even as root. other programms don't have problems to read
> > or write to this drive.
> >
> > but there is still a strange
Adrian Wrote:> no - that was not the problem. I have my linux running in a
coLinux
> session and it seems that the linker fails, when the file is in a
> windows drive, even as root. other programms don't have problems to read
> or write to this drive.
>
> but there is still a strange problem with
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> You would have to test the speed of each of them separately to be able
> to say anything definitive. Like it is now, there is no indication
> that it is the float-to-text routine which is to blame.
So use sprintf in C, and the equivalent in fpc; and rerun the test.
Mi
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Jonas Maebe wrote:
>
> On 15 jun 2007, at 11:44, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
>
> > >I'm sorry, but you are not providing enough information to give any useful
> > >comments. There is no reason why a generic library would error out because
> > >certain code is "too slow". Is
On 15 jun 2007, at 11:53, Jonas Maebe wrote:
That's quite unlikely to be the case. settextbuf seldomly makes a
difference for me. Especially if you write to standard output,
which will trigger a flush after every writeln anyway.
(unless you redirect the output to a file, at least under *ni
On 15 jun 2007, at 11:44, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
I'm sorry, but you are not providing enough information to give
any useful
comments. There is no reason why a generic library would error out
because
certain code is "too slow". Is this a real time application on an
embedded
system or s
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Jonas Maebe wrote:
>
> On 15 jun 2007, at 11:24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Hi Jonas,
> >
> > > >I know, programs with a writeln() have lower performance, but I
> > > >think, printf() and writeln() must do the same. This need time to
> > > >calculate.
> > >
On 15 jun 2007, at 11:24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Jonas,
I know, programs with a writeln() have lower performance, but
I think, printf() and writeln() must do the same. This need time
to calculate.
But the difference between printf() and writeln() are so,
that the fpc program
Hi Jonas,
>> I know, programs with a writeln() have lower performance, but I think,
>> printf() and writeln() must do the same. This need time to calculate.
>> But the difference between printf() and writeln() are so, that the fpc
>> program breaks with errors.
> What kind of errors?
I
On 14 jun 2007, at 12:22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know, programs with a writeln() have lower performance, but
I think, printf() and writeln() must do the same. This need time to
calculate.
But the difference between printf() and writeln() are so, that
the fpc program breaks wi
Hi
thank's at all for your help!
Here some more Information:
1.) I think, that the inc(counter) procedure is faster then counter:=counter+1;.
In the FreePascal book (Free Pascal; M. van Canneyt,F. Klämpfl; C&L; 2000;
ISBN 3-932311-67-1; S. 519) you can find this information.
2.) I think,
15 matches
Mail list logo
