Forum > Windows
Visual Studio 2005 compatibility issues
BenHer:
Simon & Urs,
As a side note I have a separate "configuration" under the configuration manager for testing ideas.
It doesn't have /Quipo or a few other optimizations turned on...and so I can
change a function -- compile -- link -- begin a test run of the changes within a few seconds.
Then I aslo have the original configuration provided by Simon for full (long compile+link) if I want to go there.
Simon:
Sounds like a good idea - especially for quick testing whether something compiles or links properly.
In other news, my 5.17 compilates are showing varying degrees of speed - but so far, they do seem a bit quicker than 5.15, as opposed to my last attempt at compiling 5.17 where they were slower.
So my degree of optimism as far as 5.17 is concerned is growing - crunched results all validate so far.
Regards,
Simon.
citroja:
hey,
I have some good news and bad news.
The good news it that if you need/want any help testing let me know and I will see what I can do.
The bad news is that I am moving next week and I will be taking all os my systems offline for an unknow period of time.
PM me if there is anything that I can do to help.
citroja
Urs Echternacht:
--- Quote from: Simon on 14 Aug 2006, 07:12:00 pm ---Urs,
I've taken the liberty of forwarding your RTF file to Eric Korpela along with another proposed source fix. Lets hope future versions may already incorporate some of our changes and make everyone's life just that little bit easier ;)
Regards,
Simon.
--- End quote ---
Thanks Simon,
that saves me the time to publish a post at the setibeta-forums with that rtf.file attached. Hopefully Eric Korpela will have the time to look into the modifications and rate them carefully if necessary or not. And, as i wrote in my file, this was only compilerlevel 3. There is a Level 4 waiting to show, were the real bugs are in the seti@home-sources (Changes at that level would fill a book).
At the moment i do not have Intel's ICC/IPP. I use only the VS2005 Express version, but intend to buy the standard C++ version, because it seems to me a very useful worktool. On my Pentium M 2.0 a build only needs about a few seconds. So even a try and error method is a possible way of developing (think and type is much more fun and more efficient).
Urs
Urs Echternacht:
--- Quote from: Simon on 14 Aug 2006, 10:45:28 pm ---...
In other news, my 5.17 compilates are showing varying degrees of speed - but so far, they do seem a bit quicker than 5.15, as opposed to my last attempt at compiling 5.17 where they were slower.
So my degree of optimism as far as 5.17 is concerned is growing - crunched results all validate so far.
Regards,
Simon.
--- End quote ---
Don't put that optimism to high, especially not onto 5.17. There have been posted so many compute errors in the beta forums that a new version with lesser bugs seems oblige for the developer. I've tried now many, many combinations of the MS compilerswitches and have found a combination that is on par with the standard 5.17 DevC++/MinGW build. Only, i had to enable SSE. But ICC/IPP seems to be according speedup a better way.
Another way i've seen shortly at the seti forums in a post by Piednoel Francois: structure of structures. His explanations look promising. But will that way work on other platforms without 128bit SSE4 instructions?
Last there are good books to read at that topic: Algoritms in C++ by Robert Sedgewick shows ways how to parallelize FFTs and other algos. Maybe there is something in there that can be used.
Urs
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version