Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Before I move to 64 bits I really want to get this version stable. And release it (both Windows and Linux).
That would also seem to be an ideal time to ensure that you are able to build with the latest compiler and IPP libraries.
Do you agree?
I will definitely compare the 64 bit performance of the two.
That wasn't the response I was hoping to generate, although I did try to be less direct / forceful than normal.
What I meant was that a significant effort was put forth to make the latest compiler / IPP versions be at or near the same performance level of 10.1 / 6.x. From what I remember, at last this was discussed, you knew why the remaining code didn't vectorize. I think I just dropped talking about it then, so I don't know if the "Performance Degradation" thread over on the Intel forum is still applicable or not.
Whatever the case, you can't stick to 10.1 / 6.1 indefinitely. You lose any improvements and security fixes.
Further, while I am very hopeful about having funding to actually get a new system, I could be stuck on this 32-bit platform for a while longer. In addition, I believe Bojcha is pretty set on using 32-bit XP, as are probably quite a few other people due to driver support for 64-bit still being lacking in some areas.
I know trying to figure out why the performance went down isn't "sexy", nor does it immediately generate money, but it is still something that needs to be done. This is one aspect of self-employment that, in my opinion, clouds judgement, and not just for you, but likely for me as well if I were in the situation. Working on features is generally a guaranteed revenue source, but working on something like figuring out what needs to be done to make the code effecient on a newer compiler is probably all cost. If a person is not self-employed, there is still money coming in, but not if self-employed. Still, it needs to be done.