On 7 December 2011 21:31, Juan Pablo Carbajal <carba...@ifi.uzh.ch> wrote: > Hi Leopoldo (Mailing list and chief CCed), > > There are two implementations of ellipj in the Octave-forge package > specfun. We were wondering which one is the one to distribute the .m > file or the .cc file. > Both files were created in December 2001. > > Octave is currently using the .m file (though "which" would tell > otherwise). Shall we remove the .cc version? > > > Thank you very much for letting us know > > -- > M. Sc. Juan Pablo Carbajal
Well, I mix the tests from both files and time one against the other. It's 10 tests, and both functions pass them all. I used cputime to see how fast was each one. I used the tests and measured the following (values are average of 3 runnings): C++ implementation : 3.1189 m implementation: 5.3257 So I say we drop the .m implementation. It ccan always be recovered, that's what revisoin control is for. We'll just add a note on the ellipj.cc about a previous m implementation. Carnë ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Cloud Services Checklist: Pricing and Packaging Optimization This white paper is intended to serve as a reference, checklist and point of discussion for anyone considering optimizing the pricing and packaging model of a cloud services business. Read Now! http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51491232/ _______________________________________________ Octave-dev mailing list Octave-dev@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev
