Bill Baxter: > I do find all your benchmark postings interesting. Most of them are buggy, in the beginning... The main problem is that they often do nothing real, so there's no practical result to test. In the future I'll add better tests to avoid the most silly errors of mine.
> Anyway I gave it > a try, and it does multiply the 400x400 matrices about 6.7x faster > than the fastest result from the naive mult implementation in your > benchmark. Thank you, that's a lot of difference. In my original post I have also given a block of code to multiply the matrices in a less naive way, you may test that too, if you have time and you want. Bye, bearophile
