On 12 March 2012 at 00:43, Kaveh Vakili wrote:
| Dear Prof Bates,
|
| i have started to account for the difference
| in performances between the cpp only and the
| rcpp.
|
| ctrl-f ing the rcpp docs does not give much
| on manipulation of float. Is there a way, in
| rcpp, to use the fact th
Dear Prof Bates,
i have started to account for the difference
in performances between the cpp only and the
rcpp.
ctrl-f ing the rcpp docs does not give much
on manipulation of float. Is there a way, in
rcpp, to use the fact that some parts of the
algorithm are float-safe?
(,SEXP R_x,..
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Kaveh Vakili wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> Timing:
>
> i use:
>
> int start_s=clock();
> ..
> ..
> int stop_s=clock();
> cout << "time: " << (stop_s-start_s)/double(CLOCKS_PER_SEC)*1000 << endl;
>
>
> Function:
> Whatever it is, it's coming from these three functions (whe
On 11 March 2012 at 17:04, Kaveh Vakili wrote:
|
| Dear Jared,
|
| thank you on so many levels:
|
| A) you have understood my question (no, i'm not asking for free consulting,
| yes i'm comparing pur c++ and rcpp and yes this is the part of the code
| that has the difference in timing --the r
Dear Jared,
thank you on so many levels:
A) you have understood my question (no, i'm not asking for free consulting,
yes i'm comparing pur c++ and rcpp and yes this is the part of the code
that has the difference in timing --the rest of the code times roughtly
the same, no i'm not calling bac
I don't have the answer to his question, but it looks like he's not
comparing R to Rcpp/C++ but rather "pure" C++ to Rcpp/C++. And the
suspect code he posted isn't doing anything obviously (to me) silly,
like repeatedly calling back into R (of course it would have bigger
problems trying to do that
On 11 March 2012 at 01:33, Kaveh Vakili wrote:
|
| >Don't take this the wrong way, but we are not here to debug or rewrite your
| >code for you.
|
|
| Thanks Dirk, but i'm not asking for this either.
|
| The code worksonly it doesn't time the same.
| My question is: is it normal -- is th
>Don't take this the wrong way, but we are not here to debug or rewrite your
>code for you.
Thanks Dirk, but i'm not asking for this either.
The code worksonly it doesn't time the same.
My question is: is it normal -- is there an
overhead in using rcpp and how large is it,
typically?
On 11 March 2012 at 01:05, Kaveh Vakili wrote:
| Hi Steve,
|
| Timing:
|
| i use:
|
| int start_s=clock();
| ..
| ..
| int stop_s=clock();
| cout << "time: " << (stop_s-start_s)/double(CLOCKS_PER_SEC)*1000 << endl;
Don't take this the wrong way, but we are not here to debug or rewrite your
cod
Hi Steve,
Timing:
i use:
int start_s=clock();
..
..
int stop_s=clock();
cout << "time: " << (stop_s-start_s)/double(CLOCKS_PER_SEC)*1000 << endl;
Function:
Whatever it is, it's coming from these three functions (when i uncoment them,
the rest of the code runs in comparable speed).
using name
Hi Kaveh,
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Kaveh Vakili wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> the same code when timed in cpp (i.e. without any interfacing with R)
> runs about 2 times faster than when called from R and timed from R's
> system.time(). In this type of overhead normal or is it a sign i'm doing
>
11 matches
Mail list logo
