[Insight-developers] fill

[Bradley Lowekamp]

I was able to get quite similar numbers on RH w/ gcc 4.4.7 in standard release mode:

Array size = 100, repetitions = 20000000
The elapsed time for a C++ fill_n 690000 ms.
The elapsed time for a itk.Fill   1910000 ms.
The elapsed time for a C   fill   2620000 ms.

Array size = 1000, repetitions = 2000000
The elapsed time for a C++ fill_n 460000 ms.
The elapsed time for a itk.Fill   1700000 ms.
The elapsed time for a C   fill   2520000 ms.

Array size = 10000, repetitions = 200000
The elapsed time for a C++ fill_n 420000 ms.
The elapsed time for a itk.Fill   1680000 ms.
The elapsed time for a C   fill   2510000 ms.

Array size = 100000, repetitions = 20000
The elapsed time for a C++ fill_n 570000 ms.
The elapsed time for a itk.Fill   1670000 ms.
The elapsed time for a C   fill   2510000 ms.

Array size = 1000000, repetitions = 2000
The elapsed time for a C++ fill_n 600000 ms.
The elapsed time for a itk.Fill   1680000 ms.
The elapsed time for a C   fill   2510000 ms.

Array size = 10000000, repetitions = 200
The elapsed time for a C++ fill_n 1510000 ms.
The elapsed time for a itk.Fill   1820000 ms.
The elapsed time for a C   fill   2540000 ms.

I did modify the test to set the value to 3.14, instead of 0, because other optimization may happen with a zero value...

Brad

On Apr 10, 2013, at 11:33 AM, Bill Lorensen <bill.lorensen at gmail.com> wrote:

> Or maybe Ubuntu is milliseconds and windows is seconds?
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Bill Lorensen <bill.lorensen at gmail.com> wrote:
> The Ubuntu timings are much longer than windows. Was that expected?
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 10:42 AM, <M.Staring at lumc.nl> wrote:
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Staring, M. (LKEB)
> Sent: woensdag 10 april 2013 16:28
> To: Insight Developers (insight-developers at itk.org)
> Subject: FW: fill
> 
> Forgot to include the maliing list
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Staring, M. (LKEB)
> Sent: woensdag 10 april 2013 16:24
> To: 'Williams, Norman K'; blowekamp at mail.nih.gov
> Cc: matt.mccormick at kitware.com
> Subject: RE: fill
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Attached you can find some timings for different POD types, I tested for short, int, float and double. std::fill_n is always faster, but less so for longer types.
> 
> I simply modified itk::Array::Fill to use std::fill_n instead of referring to the vnl_vector::fill which uses a simple loop over the data. Not sure if this is the way to go, but my experimental looks green:
> 
>         http://open.cdash.org/buildSummary.php?buildid=2871413
> 
> The patch I just submitted to gerrit:
> 
>         http://review.source.kitware.com/#/c/10801/
> 
> Curious to your comments,
> 
> Regards, Marius
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Powered by www.kitware.com
> 
> Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
> http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
> 
> Kitware offers ITK Training Courses, for more information visit:
> http://kitware.com/products/protraining.php
> 
> Please keep messages on-topic and check the ITK FAQ at:
> http://www.itk.org/Wiki/ITK_FAQ
> 
> Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://www.itk.org/mailman/listinfo/insight-developers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Unpaid intern in BillsBasement at noware dot com
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Unpaid intern in BillsBasement at noware dot com
> _______________________________________________
> Powered by www.kitware.com
> 
> Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
> http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
> 
> Kitware offers ITK Training Courses, for more information visit:
> http://kitware.com/products/protraining.php
> 
> Please keep messages on-topic and check the ITK FAQ at:
> http://www.itk.org/Wiki/ITK_FAQ
> 
> Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://www.itk.org/mailman/listinfo/insight-developers

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.itk.org/pipermail/insight-developers/attachments/20130410/9b2d5a51/attachment.htm>