To Arjen, Phil, and Jim:
I am addressing this post mostly to you guys because you are the only
ones I am aware of that are still working on substantial (i.e., non
bug-fix) changes for this release cycle.
As release manager, I really appreciate how hard all of you are
working on improving PLplot i
Hi Jim:
On 2015-01-26 12:02-0500 Jim Dishaw wrote:
> As Phil points out, this is a minor performance optimization because
the difference in a 2 ms memory allocation vs and a 0.07 ms memory
allocation is not significant given the number of 2D allocations a
typical program would make. I'm always a
-- Forwarded message --
From: Phil Rosenberg
Date: 26 January 2015 at 22:14
Subject: Re: Another patch for plbuf
To: Jim Dishaw
Hi Jim
I've moved this discussion to the developer list.
Yes I think that suggestion sounds correct. If rather than waiting for
some feature e.g. colo
I tried the benchmark with different level of optimizations and the performance
of my simple benchmark was unaffected.
Out of curiosity, I varied the sizes and got some interesting results (using
Debian 3.2.60). WIth many allocations/deallocations occurring, the coalescing
and pre-splitting st
Does anyone on the list have a detailed understanding of haw the 3d
text transformations work?
I am just trying to deal with text transformations in the new
wxWidgets driver and if I plug the EscText::xform values into the
wxWidgets transform then I get the attached plot for example 28 page
1. As
Having thought about this a bit I just wanted to put some arguments
against such a change too. I think there are some good reasons to not
to change the way we do things. This is going to be a bit of a long
and rambling email, so sorry in advance.
The most important reason to stay as we are is the
