dolfin team mailing list archive

["Garth N. Wells" <gnw20@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 11/11/10 10:39, Anders Logg wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 01:27:02PM -0800, Johan Hake wrote:
> > On Wednesday November 10 2010 13:14:26 noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > revno: 5256
> > > committer: Anders Logg<logg@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > branch nick: dolfin
> > > timestamp: Wed 2010-11-10 22:11:59 +0100
> > > message:
> > >    Use boost::timer in place of std::clock. Simplifies implementation,
> > >    but same (slow) speed as std::clock and equally bad precision.
> > >    boost:timer most likely uses std::clock but at least the implementation
> > >    is simplified.
> >
> > The boost::timer _is_ using std::clock and the implementation is more or less
> > exactly the same as ours (where) :). I looked into this when I tried to fix
> > the strange timer bug in PyDOLFIN.
>
> Yes, but the implementation is "much" simpler using boost.
>
> It's now been replaced by a system-specific call to getttimeofday
> which has much better speed and accuracy.

Do we have a benchmark to measure the cost of the timing?

Garth

> --
> Anders
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin
> Post to     : dolfin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp