|
From: Dimitrios A. <ji...@gm...> - 2005-06-08 12:31:28
|
> (OK, saw this file in a backlog of email. Hans must be sending these > through manually.) It is a possibility. That matrix code is sort of a > tacked on thing. But unless we understand what the problem is how can > we know that there is extraneous, inefficient code? However, if you > believe what you've coded meets the definitions and format in the > documentation and is faster, then consider redoing the patch with the > old, unneeded code removed. Otherwise, it will leave cruft floating > about, just what you are attempting to improve upon. My patch certainly doesn't meet any definitions or format. I have no time right now to rewrite the patch correctly and according to the coding standards. If you wish that I send you another patch with the old code replaced, tell me so and I will. However it will be of the same (low) quality, which I think is not ready to replace the current code. Did anyone actually tried it to see the speed improvement? I have done no benchmarks but what I described in an earlier email (how to plot big SRTM files) now works *much* faster (*10 or more speed improvement). For now I will be happy to see an entry in the TODO file about optimizing the highly innefficient "matrix" parser. In the future, if you haven't found the time to fix it, perhaps I will submit a proper patch, compliant to the coding standards and good enough for you to use it. Thanks, Dimitris |