[Shootout-list] fannkuch

[Bengt Kleberg]

On 2005-05-19 22:23, Brent Fulgham wrote:
...deleted
> 
> This measurement limit is based on the resolution of
> the timers available.  We found that anything below
> about 0.01 second was not reliable.

thank you. this was the information i was looking for.

if 0.009 is not reliable, does that not mean that 0.01 seconds is 50% 
reliable? and that we need 0.1 seconds to reach 90% reliable?


>>i have a c program that can be used for this. i do
>>not have the skill to test the perl timeing system. 
>>would it be a good idea to run the c 
>>program? or should somebody that knows perl recode
>>it in perl? it is simple and short.
> 
> 
> I think your C program is great.  The only problem
> is that it would involve a large shift in the way
> the shootout runs, changing the measurements from

this is another c program. one that would only be used to find out if 
0.01 is realiable.


> I am not opposed to adding additional X's to our
> set of data runs -- this is just making the existing
> infrastructure do more iterations.

i am pleased to hear that. perhaps i will on day be able to stop 
repeating my request and start working on tests instead.


bengt