Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #13567
| From | Cholo Lennon <chololennon@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c++ |
| Subject | Re: Another C++ performance article |
| Date | 2012-01-24 19:10 -0300 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <jfna4s$390$1@speranza.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | <jfmvpn$6k9$1@speranza.aioe.org> <slrnjhu3ol.1ls.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid> <jfn7n5$o5u$1@dont-email.me> |
On 24/01/2012 18:27, MikeWhy wrote: > The benchmark is simplistic, uninteresting, and > unenlightening by failing to exercise and account for memory bandwidth, > cache misses, and instruction order optimizations available on modern > processors. > I thought the same at first glance. That's why I wanted to share it here in order to confirm my initial opinion: Another test where an author fails to set up a valid benchmark/experiment. The benchmark is very simple and general. The funny side is the article has received almost five stars from the readers. -- Cholo Lennon Bs.As. ARG
Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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