• baleog (28/28) Jun 14 2008 Hello
• janderson (6/36) Jun 14 2008 To me your code looks reasonable, although you probably want to take the...
• Charles Hixson (6/13) Jun 14 2008 wouldn't that be:
• janderson (5/20) Jun 14 2008 Actually it should be:

baleog <maccarka yahoo.com> writes:

Hello
I wrote 2 almost identical test programs(matrix multiplication). One on C and
another on D. And D prorgram was 15 times slower! 
Was it my mistake or not?
Thank you

p.s. code:
void test (int n) {  
  float[] xs = new float[n*n];
  float[] ys = new float[n*n];
  for(int i = n-1; i>=0; --i) {
    xs[i] = 1.0;
  }
 for(int i = n-1; i>=0; --i) {
    ys[i] = 2.0;
  }
  float[] zs = new float[n*n];
  for (int i=0; i<n; ++i) {
    for (int j=0; j<n; ++j) {
      float s = 0.0;
      for (int k=0; k<n; ++k) {
        s = s + (xs[k + (i*n)] * ys[j + (k*n)]);
      }
      zs[j+ (i*n)] =  s;
    }
  }
  delete xs;
  delete ys;
  delete zs;
}

janderson <askme me.com> writes:

baleog wrote:
 Hello
 I wrote 2 almost identical test programs(matrix multiplication). One on C and
another on D. And D prorgram was 15 times slower! 
 Was it my mistake or not?
 Thank you
 
 p.s. code:
 void test (int n) {  
   float[] xs = new float[n*n];
   float[] ys = new float[n*n];
   for(int i = n-1; i>=0; --i) {
     xs[i] = 1.0;
   }
  for(int i = n-1; i>=0; --i) {
     ys[i] = 2.0;
   }
   float[] zs = new float[n*n];
   for (int i=0; i<n; ++i) {
     for (int j=0; j<n; ++j) {
       float s = 0.0;
       for (int k=0; k<n; ++k) {
         s = s + (xs[k + (i*n)] * ys[j + (k*n)]);
       }
       zs[j+ (i*n)] =  s;
     }
   }
   delete xs;
   delete ys;
   delete zs;
 }
 


To me your code looks reasonable, although you probably want to take the 
startup time and the gc out of the equation since that cost is fixed. 
BTW: here's a slightly more optimal reverse loop:

for(int i = n; --i>0; )

-Joel

Charles Hixson <charleshixsn earthlink.net> writes:

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 11:34:20 -0700, janderson wrote:

...To me your code looks reasonable, although you probably want to take 

the
 startup time and the gc out of the equation since that cost is fixed.
 BTW: here's a slightly more optimal reverse loop:
 
 for(int i = n; --i>0; )
 
 -Joel

wouldn't that be:
for(int i = n; i-- >0; )
?
first time through i == n-1, last time through i == 0.

janderson <askme me.com> writes:

Charles Hixson wrote:
 On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 11:34:20 -0700, janderson wrote:
 
 ...To me your code looks reasonable, although you probably want to take 

 the
 startup time and the gc out of the equation since that cost is fixed.
 BTW: here's a slightly more optimal reverse loop:

 for(int i = n; --i>0; )

 -Joel

 
 wouldn't that be:
 for(int i = n; i-- >0; )
 ?
 first time through i == n-1, last time through i == 0.

Actually it should be:

for(int i = n; --i>=0; )

(missed the >=)

-Joel