On 24 August 2010 19:19, Wolfram Humann <w.c.humann@arcor.de> wrote: > On 21.08.2010 13:46, demerphq wrote: >> >> On 21 August 2010 12:52, Wolfram Humann<w.c.humann@arcor.de> wrote: >> >>> >>> perl -MData::Dumper -E"sub mt{my $d=shift;$d>0?[mt($d-1),mt($d-1)]:int >>> rand >>> 100}; say length Dumper mt 18" >>> 34576966 >>> >>> needs approx. 6 seconds to print and 8 seconds to finish on both of >>> these. >>> >> >> Interesting, how does that compare for you if you stick a >> >> $Data::Dumper::Useqq=1; >> >> before the dump? > > Some more results, wristwatch timed -> ignore minor differences: > > N=20 > strawberry: 27 seconds > with my patch: 29 seconds > usemymalloc: 10 seconds > > With $Data::Dumper::Useqq=1 I had to reduce N to 19 to avoid out-of-memory. > Strawberryperl unpatched only. > > Without $Data::Dumper::Useqq=1: 10 seconds, 462 MB > With $Data::Dumper::Useqq=1: 28 seconds, 1100 MB Interesting... >>> No noticeable difference. With a touch of horror I have to report that >>> the >>> printed stringlengths are slightly non-deterministic from run to >>> run...??? >>> >> >> :-) >> >> No worries there, the code does use rand() after all, so we expect to >> see slightly different results from run to run (or the srand >> initialization would be broken). Add a srand(1) or change the int rand >> 100 to a constant and it should produce repeatable results. >> > > O.k. so no need to be worried about the code. But maybe I need to be worried > about a mind that is obvously able to type "rand" one moment and complain > about the code running non-deterministic about 5 minutes later ;-) I suspect your holiday will resolve any concerns you might have in this regard.... > I'll be on vacation soon. Won't be able to respond to news in this thread > quickly (maybe not at all) for the weeks to come. Have fun... And dont worry about this thread, seems to me the point is proved... cheers Yves -- perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"Thread Previous | Thread Next