5 ms·
Do you have numbers? I want to try doing the same test against the proposed expected<T> as well but haven't had the time yet. EDIT: From your version on a 2013
by pixel_fcker 10y ago
Do you have numbers? I want to try doing the same test against the proposed expected<T> as well but haven't had the time yet.
EDIT: From your version on a 2013 rMBP, Apple clang 8, I get (top-left 5x5 corner of the matrix)
eccCC
ecccc
ceCcC
eceCc
ceeec
compared to the original:
EEEec
EEEEE
EEEEE
EEEEE
EEEEE
EDIT2: And switching out 'throw std::runtime_error("Error");' for 'throw int();'
eccCC
eEecc
eeeec
ecCec
Eeeee
- juliangoldsmith 10y agoI ran it on my x86_64 Linux server, using gcc. The full results can be found at https://juliangoldsmith.com/excspeed%20results.txt https://juliangoldsmith.com/excspeed%20results.txt, but the matrix output looked like this: ecCCCCCCCC ccCCCCCCCC ccccCCCCCC cccccccCCC ecccccccCC cccccccCCC ecccccCCcc cccccccccC ecccccCccc cccccccccc
- pixel_fcker 10y agoEDIT3: Changing C code to check for error and increment the error variable if it's non-zero, compared to C++ throwing an int(): ecccc eeeec eecec eeeee EEEEE and against throwing std::runtime_error("Error"): ecccC eeece ceeec eeEee EEeEe