> > Suppose I have a code that takes a day to finish after being compiled. So > the first run (since it is being compiled) might take say 5 days. But > after that 5 days I have got the results and there is no need to run it the > second time. So the supposedly fast execution after compile is not going > to be necessary anyway, and hence provides no benefits.
The only situation in which "run twice" applies is microbenchmarks where the compilation time exceeds the actual runtime. If the process takes a day to run, compile time will be a rounding error. On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 9:34 PM, K leo <cnbiz...@gmail.com> wrote: > Might be slightly off-topic, but closely related. > > Does anyone find the logic to run a code first just to compile it and then > do the real run afterwards somewhat flawed, or am I missing anything? > > Suppose I have a code that takes a day to finish after being compiled. So > the first run (since it is being compiled) might take say 5 days. But > after that 5 days I have got the results and there is no need to run it the > second time. So the supposedly fast execution after compile is not going > to be necessary anyway, and hence provides no benefits. > > On Wednesday, January 7, 2015, Christoph Ortner < > christophortn...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Maybe run >> >> test() >> >> then >> >> tic() >> testf() >> toc() >> >> so that the code is compiled first? Just a guess >> >> Christoph >> >> >>
