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

Reply via email to