Path: csiph.com!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tim Rentsch Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: filling area by color atack safety - worst memory size Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 09:57:39 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 46 Message-ID: <864jazrp18.fsf@linuxsc.com> References: <86h6h3nvyz.fsf@linuxsc.com> <865xxiok09.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20240319131842.00002138@yahoo.com> <86o7b9ms7d.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20240320115416.00001ab5@yahoo.com> <86zfusltwp.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20240324193352.000062e9@yahoo.com> <86jzlrk0f6.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20240405173033.00006145@yahoo.com> <868r1k1uq8.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20240411152033.00007173@yahoo.com> <86bk6ez9te.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20240417004609.000010aa@yahoo.com> <86plunyj82.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20240417224126.0000727a@yahoo.com> <86a5lpxbd3.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20240420211023.000067cc@yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 18:57:39 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="43a77f51a07bd525f985674c7a7a947d"; logging-data="1048544"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+E5zGwz2VTSLghL7U2KRjGpZ9BQXBhMKs=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:28bXJRtKazkP7/aNzubaVdAmmew= sha1:RsFcnd4/h13ElZOK7Qbfqyn1IxM= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:384587 Michael S writes: > On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 14:59:20 -0700 > Tim Rentsch wrote: > >> Michael S writes: >> >>> On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 10:47:25 -0700 >>> Tim Rentsch wrote: >>> >>>> Michael S writes: >>>> >>>> [...] >>>> >>>>> Finally found the time for speed measurements. [...] >>>> >>>> I got these. Thank you. >>>> >>>> The format used didn't make it easy to do any automated >>>> processing. I was able to get around that, although it >>>> would have been nicer if that had been easier. >>>> >>>> The results you got are radically different than my own, >>>> to the point where I wonder if there is something else >>>> going on. >>> >>> What are your absolute result? >>> Are they much faster, much slower or similar to mine? >>> Also it would help if you find out characteristics of your >>> test hardware. >> >> I think trying to look at those wouldn't tell me anything >> helpful. Too many unknowns. And still no way to test or >> measure any changes to the various algorithms. > > Frankly, I don't understand. > If you have troubles with testing on shared hardware then you can > always test on the hardware that you own and has full control. > Even if it is a little old, the trends tend to be the same. At > least I clearly see the same trends on my almost 12 y.o. home PC > and on relatively modern EPYC3. I have put this problem aside. It's a lot of work even if I had a way to make substantive progress, and at present I don't. Maybe more sometime later but for now I think suspending is the only workable choice available.