Thanks so much for the tips. The culprit is the keyword argument
(xRat=0.). Declaring it made the wrapped code twice as fast, but still way
slower than the inline code. But making it positional made the wrapped
code just a little slower than the inline code - big improvement.
On Wednesday, S
On Wed, 2016-09-28 at 08:50, Gunnar Farnebäck wrote:
> It's normal that manually inlined code of this kind is faster than wrapped
> code unless the compiler manages to see the full inlining potential. In
> this case the huge memory allocations for the wrapped solutions indicates
> that it's nowher
It's normal that manually inlined code of this kind is faster than wrapped
code unless the compiler manages to see the full inlining potential. In
this case the huge memory allocations for the wrapped solutions indicates
that it's nowhere near doing that at all. I doubt it will take you all the
