PureBasic Forums - English

marcoagpinto wrote: Sun Sep 10, 2023 10:59 am @Fred,

Sorry to sound bad, but the code generated (executable) has the same size as beta 5 and it has the same speed (if not slower).

Am I missing something?

Thanks!

EDIT: I am referring to the C backend, of course.

marcoagpinto wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2023 8:32 am Buaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Beta 6 is slower than beta 5, even with all the optimisations I have been doing in the source-code of my software.

Windows 11, C-backend, PureBasic x64.

Fred wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2023 10:07 am

marcoagpinto wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2023 8:32 am Buaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Beta 6 is slower than beta 5, even with all the optimisations I have been doing in the source-code of my software.

Windows 11, C-backend, PureBasic x64.

We didn't changed anything with code generation between beta 5 and 6, if you can see where it is slower please post a bug report.

marcoagpinto wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2023 11:20 am

Fred wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2023 10:07 am

marcoagpinto wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2023 8:32 am Buaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Beta 6 is slower than beta 5, even with all the optimisations I have been doing in the source-code of my software.

Windows 11, C-backend, PureBasic x64.

We didn't changed anything with code generation between beta 5 and 6, if you can see where it is slower please post a bug report.

@Fred

I had made an optimisation of my PhD software in beta 5 that made 20 runs of it to take less 40 seconds.

Now, I compiled with beta 6, and it takes longer than with the change above, more 5 seconds in 20 runs.

I know 5 seconds doesn't sound much, but I have to generate data of many thousands of runs and 5 seconds more in each 20 runs produces a huge difference in all these runs.

Quin wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2023 2:26 pm Are you able to give a code sample?

marcoagpinto wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2023 5:36 pm How?

StartTime = ElapsedMilliseconds()
Delay(1000) ; code under test
Debug ElapsedMilliseconds() - StartTime
Delay(1000) ; code under test
Debug ElapsedMilliseconds() - StartTime