On 12/10/14 14:13, David Ham wrote:
In figure 2, the RHS overhead looks awfully high. It's an order of magnitude worse than that in figure 5. Is this correct?
Yes, because in the Poisson case this include the overhead of calling FFC since it is a steady state problem, whereas in Fig. 5 we're not measuring FFC overhead since the compiled form is cached and the FFC cost is amortised over many time steps. Florian
David
On 11 October 2014 11:27, Rathgeber, Florian <florian.rathgeber@imperial.ac.uk <mailto:florian.rathgeber@imperial.ac.uk>> wrote:
I'd still be interested in feedback on this!
On 04/10/14 09:12, Florian Rathgeber wrote: > Dear all, > > I finished a first draft of the results section for the Firedrake paper. > Any feedback gratefully received! > > If you don't have access to the repository you can get a PDF from > > https://wwwhomes.doc.ic.ac.uk/~fr710/paper.pdf > > Cheers, > Florian