From: Jeremy Bopp <jeremy@...>
Date: 2010-10-31T23:49:49+09:00
Subject: Re: Is this an effective loop

On 10/31/2010 05:15 AM, Robert Klemme wrote:
> On 30.10.2010 00:47, Jeremy Bopp wrote:
>> On 10/29/2010 5:36 PM, Ammar Ali wrote:
>>> I see. I excluded the i += 1 from the for and times loops because
>>> that is
>>> done automatically. Adding them seemed to add work that was not
>>> necessary
>>> for those constructs, and IMHO, make the benchmark inaccurate.
>>
>> That's definitely a debatable point in this benchmark because we are
>> essentially doubling the number of add operations for the loops that
>> perform it implicitly.  However, we also want to see how the choice of
>> looping mechanism affects the operations performed within the loop, so
>> making the looped operations completely identical has its merits.
> 
> I'm sorry but this is nonsense: different loop constructs are
> benchmarked precisely to determine which iteration is quicker.
> Incrementing the loop variable is one of the things that make up the
> difference between looping constructs so there is no point in doing this
> "manually" just to make loop bodies look identical.

Yeah, I suppose you're right now that I think about it again.  Thanks
for the smack with the clue-by-four. ;-)

-Jeremy