Subject: better timing results - Maple, C++, Maxima
From: Dennis Darland
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 01:52:18 -0700 (PDT)
August 21, 2012
Ran general batch test with fixes from yesterday
There were some problems, so there is more to do before I post results.
However I can give better time comparisons.
I discovered the time reported by Maple is CPU time - so I am using the difference in the times in the time stamps instead.
Maxima can report either clock or CPU time - there are 2 functions - I am using clock time.
C and C++ report clock time.
The following was obtained with mtest6.ode
Maple did 100 iterations in 24 seconds (17 seconds CPU)
C++ did 69 iterations in 60 seconds
Maxima did 8 iterations in 67 seconds
This is:
Maple 4.17 iterations/second
C++ 1.15 iterations/second
Maxima 0.12 iterations/second
NOTE: The comparison is not altogether fair. Digits was set to 32 for Maple, while only 16 digit precision was obtained for C++ and Maxima
August 20, 2012
Fixed a number of problems with last release (omnisode0014)
Made to work with c as well as c++ (using gnu gcc and g++)
Fixed time measurement in c and c++ (Also note Maple time is CPU time - Maxima, C and C++ time are clock time)
Fixed digits field in table for c and c++
Added number of correct digits to output and table when analytic solution given
Added beautify program for tcppl.sh script.
Made preodein.rb handle local declarations for maxima (only affects analytic solutions)
Dennis J. Darland
dennis.darland at yahoo.com
http://dennisdarland.com/http://dennisdarland.com/dennisdaze/http://dennisdarland.com/philosophy/http://sode.sourceforge.net/
?Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new.?
Albert Einstein