<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Performance degradration on using static libs vs dynamic dlls in Intel® Integrated Performance Primitives</title>
    <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/Performance-degradration-on-using-static-libs-vs-dynamic-dlls/m-p/909747#M13997</link>
    <description>Hello,&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I observed a factor of 2 or 3 performanceLOSS upon transitioning from usual dyanmic linking toinstead IPP static linking with threaded static libswith dispatch (*emerged.lib, *merged_t.lib).As suggested in the manual I addedippStaticInit() to the beginning of the main program but that did not make any difference.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I am using IPP 6.0. Any suggestions on what I may be missing ?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Thanks.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Manoj&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:07:34 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>manoj_aggarwal</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2009-10-16T15:07:34Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Performance degradration on using static libs vs dynamic dlls</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/Performance-degradration-on-using-static-libs-vs-dynamic-dlls/m-p/909747#M13997</link>
      <description>Hello,&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I observed a factor of 2 or 3 performanceLOSS upon transitioning from usual dyanmic linking toinstead IPP static linking with threaded static libswith dispatch (*emerged.lib, *merged_t.lib).As suggested in the manual I addedippStaticInit() to the beginning of the main program but that did not make any difference.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I am using IPP 6.0. Any suggestions on what I may be missing ?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Thanks.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Manoj&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:07:34 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/Performance-degradration-on-using-static-libs-vs-dynamic-dlls/m-p/909747#M13997</guid>
      <dc:creator>manoj_aggarwal</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-10-16T15:07:34Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Performance degradration on using static libs vs dynamic dl</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/Performance-degradration-on-using-static-libs-vs-dynamic-dlls/m-p/909748#M13998</link>
      <description>&lt;DIV style="margin:0px;"&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;
Hi Manoj,&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Do you experience the same problem with the latest IPP 6.1 version? What is the IPP function or functions affected? How do you measure performance, what is target OS and processor?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Regards,&lt;BR /&gt; Vladimir&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2009 20:56:56 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/Performance-degradration-on-using-static-libs-vs-dynamic-dlls/m-p/909748#M13998</guid>
      <dc:creator>Vladimir_Dudnik</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-10-16T20:56:56Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

