Re: Another C++ performance article

Path	csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!news.musoftware.de!wum.musoftware.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From	"Bo Persson" <bop@gmb.dk>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c++
Subject	Re: Another C++ performance article
Date	Tue, 24 Jan 2012 23:15:43 +0100
Lines	18
Message-ID	<9o8osfFhfvU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References	<jfmvpn$6k9$1@speranza.aioe.org>
X-Trace	individual.net FilHHFl4+X4CZihd24nrTQQRKn58fpTij+nw6hmP4K9fWOBAbS
Cancel-Lock	sha1:C4Y1ibR6/52ihcqcVTJo8y3ZcIc=
X-Priority	3
X-MSMail-Priority	Normal
X-Newsreader	Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
X-RFC2646	Format=Flowed; Response
X-Antivirus	avast! (VPS 120124-0, 2012-01-24), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status	Clean
Xref	x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.c++:13568

Show key headers only | View raw

Cholo Lennon wrote:
> May be this post is a bit off topic:
>
> Do you think this article is fair with C++?
>
> http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/304935/Operation-Performance-Evaluation

Any C++ benchmark starting like this

int main()
{
    int* A = new int[SIZE];
    int* B = new int[SIZE];
    int* C = new int[SIZE];

is obviously not serious. LOL!Bo Persson

Thread

Another C++ performance article Cholo Lennon <chololennon@hotmail.com> - 2012-01-24 16:13 -0300
  Re: Another C++ performance article Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-01-24 20:05 +0000
    Re: Another C++ performance article "MikeWhy" <boat042-nospam@yahoo.com> - 2012-01-24 15:27 -0600
      Re: Another C++ performance article Cholo Lennon <chololennon@hotmail.com> - 2012-01-24 19:10 -0300
  Re: Another C++ performance article "Bo Persson" <bop@gmb.dk> - 2012-01-24 23:15 +0100
    Re: Another C++ performance article Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2012-01-25 06:17 +0000
  Re: Another C++ performance article Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2012-01-25 06:44 +0000

csiph-web