similar to: R 1.4.0 much slower than R 1.3.1

my environment. vmware 6.5. workstation 2.6.32.25-xen when make linux-2.6-pvops-build is very slowly. _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 5:03 AM, Stuart Marsden <stuartmarsden at finmars.co.uk> wrote: > I have just started trying Opus with a view to using it in a project. I am > interested in embedded hardware and tried it on the Raspberry Pi using the > raspbian distro. > > The version of libopus in the repos is 0.9.14. I installed this and tried > encoding 2 minutes of speech from a

On 04/29/2010 11:44 AM, Yuri wrote: > > I run the same simple Fibonacci computing code in JIT and as a native > executable. I see that with argument 45 JIT runs for 11.3sec and > executable runs for 7.5sec. > Why there is such difference? How long does it take for llc to compile it? Remember that the JIT includes code generation time. Best regards, --Edwin

Török Edwin wrote: > How long does it take for llc to compile it? > Remember that the JIT includes code generation time llc takes almost no time (0.00 user as measured by time), code is tiny. Yuri

On 04/29/2010 12:13 PM, Yuri wrote: > Török Edwin wrote: >> How long does it take for llc to compile it? >> Remember that the JIT includes code generation time > > llc takes almost no time (0.00 user as measured by time), code is tiny. > Are you using 2.6 or 2.7, 32-bit or 64-bit? With 2.7 on x86-64 I get: lli: real 0m9.564s user 0m9.557s sys 0m0.004s a.out:

Török Edwin wrote: > Are you using 2.6 or 2.7, 32-bit or 64-bit? > I use 2.7 on i386. lli has debug asserts enabled, but I guess this shouldn't matter for JIT code speed. jit: 11.32 real exe: 7.64 user Both have -O3 option. Speed should be the same. Yuri

Yuri <yuri at tsoft.com> writes: >> With >> >> time lli -O3 fib.bc 45 >> >> you are measuring the time lli takes optimizing the LLVM code, >> generating the native code and, finally, executing it. If you add to >> this the debug asserts, it is not surprising that lli ends being quite a >> bit slower than directly executing the native code >

I run the same simple Fibonacci computing code in JIT and as a native executable. I see that with argument 45 JIT runs for 11.3sec and executable runs for 7.5sec. Why there is such difference? Yuri -------- fib.ll -------- ; ModuleID = 'all.bc' @.str = private constant [12 x i8] c"fib(%i)=%i\0A\00", align 1 ; <[12 x i8]*> [#uses=1] define i32 @fib(i32 %AnArg) {

On a PII233 system running linux with ogg-vorbis-RC2, when playing a 2-min 48kbps ogg file, ogg123 takes much more CPU time than XMMS (several seconds with ogg123 vs. less than one second for all XMMS threads added up). Since the pids are the same, I am sure that XMMS did not create new threads when playing one song. I think this has to do with soundcard interaction. <p>--- >8 ----

http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13689 Summary: nouveau is much slower than nv with flash player Product: xorg Version: git Platform: Other OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: medium Component: Driver/nouveau AssignedTo: nouveau at lists.freedesktop.org

Hello, I've noticed that dget() is much slower in the current and devel R versions than in previous versions. In 2.15 reading a 10000-row data.frame takes less than half a second: > (which.r <- R.Version()$version.string) [1] "R version 2.15.2 (2012-10-26)" > x <- data.frame(matrix(sample(letters, 100000, replace = TRUE), ncol = 10)) > dput(x, which.r) >

Hello everybody. I have a question that has stumped me and the usual "apply" tricks don't seem to work. I run a course where each student's performance is marked by one or more assessors. I have a data frame containing students' names, assessors' names and their marks, arranged as follows: ID student assessor Q1A Q1B Q1C Q2A Q2B Q3 1 2152833

Dear all, I'm trying to write an efficient binary file reader for a file type that is made up of several fields of variable length, and so requires many small reads. Doing this on the file directly using a sequence of readBin() calls is a bit too slow for my needs, so I tried buffering the file into a raw vector and reading from that ("loc" is the equivalent of the file pointer):

Dear all, I'm trying to write an efficient binary file reader for a file type that is made up of several fields of variable length, and so requires many small reads. Doing this on the file directly using a sequence of readBin() calls is a bit too slow for my needs, so I tried buffering the file into a raw vector and reading from that ("loc" is the equivalent of the file pointer):

RA2:YR is a 2D game - I think it probably uses DirectDraw. It runs slower with 0.9.16 and now the in game cursor flickers. Besides minor audio problems it ran fine in 0.9.15. I tried setting HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Wine\Direct3D\DirectDrawRenderer to "gdi". It made no difference. Is that the corrent way to turn off the new DirectDraw changes?

Hi! I have moved our samba configuration to a new hardware. Old config: PII 266 MHz 96MB memory RedHat 7.2 20Gb ide hard drive for samba shares samba-*-2.2.7-3.7.2 packages installed kernel-2.4.20-28.7 New config: P4 2.4GHz 512MB memory RedHat 9.0 60GB scsi hard drive for samba shares and OS 40GB ide hard drive for backups samba-*-2.2.7a-8.9.0

I used the packaged "MinGW-2.0.0-3.exe" exactly as specified on http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/pub/Rtools/ - in fact I used these recommendations throughout. According to the release notes MinGW version 2.0.0 contains the following list of packages: GCC-3.2-core-20020817-1 binutils-2.13-20020903-1 mingw-runtime-2.2 w32api-2.0 gdb-5.1.1-1 make-3.79.1-20010722 (binary renamed as mingw32-make)

Hi Stuart, you are compressing it at 6kbit/s. Then, then SILK mode is probability used and the Silk mode is much faster than CELT. Do you also some figures at 64kbit/s? It is strange that Opus 1.1 got slower in the Silk mode - may the speech/voice selection adds some overhead. I would be interested in seeing the performance of the 64 kbit/s in both Opus 1.0 and Opus 1.1. With best

Hello List How do I turn R> simple.example.alphabetic [,1] [,2] [,3] [1,] "a" "b" "c" [2,] "d" "e" "f" [3,] "g" "h" "i" into R> simple.example.numeric [,1] [,2] [,3] [1,] 1 2 3 [2,] 4 5 6 [3,] 7 8 9 [ie "a" becomes 1, ..., "z"

Hi all developers, I'm changing compiler from gcc to llvm on a RISCV target now. but I found in some case the assembly code generated by llvm is much more than gcc. It cause my program's performance about 40% decrease. The flowing is a simple test code. It shows the problem. We can see than gcc prefer to use pointer to iterate the array, but llvm perfere to use index to iterate