Re: QtHandles and performance

[John W. Eaton]

On 01/09/2014 04:30 PM, Rik wrote:
> On 01/09/2014 12:06 PM, address@hidden wrote:

> Do we need to re-measure the performance penalty before we can make an
> informed decision, or are we confident in the 10% number?

Measuring again is probably a good idea.  I compiled with optimization 
enabled (default -O2 for GCC) and timed running the test suite to compare.

> If the performance penalty is only associated with displaying graphics
> objects, and not pure math functions, then is this pretty much acceptable?
> Graphics are measured on a human time scale, hundreds of milliseconds to
> actual seconds, rather than the microseconds of inner loops so there is
> abundant headroom for some slowdown.

Reference counting happens pretty much everywhere in Octave.  If you 
make reference counting slower, you'll make pretty much all of Octave 
slower, not just graphics operations.  Sure, the library calls to things 
like BLAS are not affected, but the general speed of the interpreter is.

jwe