Subject: CGAL users discussion list
List archive
- From: Marius Kintel <>
- To:
- Subject: Re: [cgal-discuss] Boolean performance
- Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 12:43:41 -0500
- Authentication-results: mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; spf=None ; spf=None ; spf=None
- Ironport-phdr: 9a23:AMyDSRLguChu2Vd+6NmcpTZWNBhigK39O0sv0rFitYgUKfTxwZ3uMQTl6Ol3ixeRBMOAu6wC27ud4vCocFdDyKjCmUhKSIZLWR4BhJdetC0bK+nBN3fGKuX3ZTcxBsVIWQwt1Xi6NU9IBJS2PAWK8TWM5DIfUi/yKRBybrysXNWC0YLnhqvjq9X6WEZhunmUWftKNhK4rAHc5IE9oLBJDeIP8CbPuWZCYO9MxGlldhq5lhf44dqsrtY4q3wD86Fpy8kVWqrze+E0TKdTES89G2Ez/szi8xfZHiWV4X5Jd2wMkwdTSyvE6g33Wt+ltyLgt/dm8CqbO9H7SfYyVCj0vPQjcwPhlCpSb21xy2rQkMEl1K8=
It’s been a while since I tested this, but I seem to remember that the
majority of CPU time was spent doing Gmpq memory management. I’m not familiar
with CLR, but it wouldn’t surprise me if memory management causes significant
CLR overhead.
-Marius
> On Jan 14, 2016, at 04:08 AM, Sebastien Loriot (GeometryFactory)
> <>
> wrote:
>
> The increase of the runtime is due to the fact that your input are
> identical which leads to many filter failures.
>
> No idea about the CLR, I've never tried.
>
> Sebastien.
- Re: [cgal-discuss] Boolean performance, Taus Møller, 01/11/2016
- Re: [cgal-discuss] Boolean performance, Sebastien Loriot (GeometryFactory), 01/14/2016
- Re: [cgal-discuss] Boolean performance, Marius Kintel, 01/14/2016
- Re: [cgal-discuss] Boolean performance, Taus Møller, 01/18/2016
- Re: [cgal-discuss] Boolean performance, Marius Kintel, 01/14/2016
- Re: [cgal-discuss] Boolean performance, Sebastien Loriot (GeometryFactory), 01/14/2016
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.18.