On 11/05/13 06:57, Benjamin Striegel wrote:
A commenter on Reddit seems to think that the state values are twice
as large in the C version, which explains the slower benchmark result:
http://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/1e262v/rust_can_be_faster_than_c_for_random_number/c9wd8qb
Still, the revised numbers are very competitive!
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Huon Wilson <dbau...@gmail.com
<mailto:dbau...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi all,
After a brief discussion here a while ago and doing some
research[1], I've started actually implementing a new random
number generation framework. The code I've got so far is on
GitHub[2], it's fairly poorly architectured/organised at the
moment (especially the number of submodules), but it's something.
Comments/pull requests welcome!
While doing this, I was testing performance, and Rust can be very
fast[3], faster than both GCC and Clang!
Huon
[1]: https://github.com/mozilla/rust/wiki/Lib-rand (still in progress)
[2]: https://github.com/huonw/rust-rand
[3]: https://gist.github.com/huonw/5553335 and
http://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/1e262v/rust_can_be_faster_than_c_for_random_number/
for some discussion
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
Rust-dev@mozilla.org <mailto:Rust-dev@mozilla.org>
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
Rust-dev@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
Hm, they are correct... that was embarrassing. But, even on the revised
test[1], Rust still seems to be faster than Clang (v3.2-2) on my system,
so we're using LLVM better!
[1]:
http://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/1e262v/rust_can_be_faster_than_c_for_random_number/c9wggp0
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
Rust-dev@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
