I've shifted this to the Windows side since that matches the compiler and what you are running.

What you might do is just attach your changed source files to a post here. I'm definitely interested, one of my hosts has a Pentium-MMX CPU so can't use the vectorized chirp functions. And if you've improved the TrigArray approach enough, it might turn out to be faster than those vectorized versions even on systems with SSE, etc.  Any further optimizations will also be welcome.

Simon has the full build system with Intel compiler and Intel Performance Primitives, but I've been doing test GCC builds for Windows with DevC++/MinGW (as Eric Korpela uses for the stock Windows applications). If your changes can be built this way I'll probably try.
                                                                                 Joe

Joe,
I´m  working now on analyzeFuncs.ccp. The important part chirpfft.cpp is now done.  Feel free to give some hints and comments.  Don´t use to compile it alone, some variables are defined outside of it.  All modifications are marked with "seti_britta:", so you can easy find it by searching.
seti_britta

hello Joe, hello Cruch3r,

at the moment I´m very busy with analyzeFuncs.cpp, reducing code and make some optimizations in the sources. After that I will look what to do with powerspectrum and transpose. How you know analyzeFuncs is a fat thing, not easy to understand what is going on in the code. Therefore I  divided it into logical parts easy to understand the function. This take me the possibility to have a better overview, reduce code and make other logical changes. Now I´m ready to show the first result of my studys , the new  programmstructure  of seti_analyze. Hints and suggestions are welcome.

for Crunch3r --> I know Linux too, have alredy installed a webserver with Apache and PHP, but at the moment I have still some old win and mac boxes and a P4 with xph, linux not installed
in english für alle anderen zum mitlesen :-)

seti_britta

see attachfile: the new structure of  seti_analyze ( still for understanding documentation and discussion)

the first news

use now an enhanced timer, count in timer ticks, test code pieces

used for test the new fkt CalcAng
let the function write in an 1000 element double vector cyclic
take this in a loop of 10 000
so we call the fkt 10 mio times.
was surprised about the result,
tryed this with 2 small different functions
here you see the result
-------------------
Timer Frequency in:
Hz  =       3579545
MHz =       3.57955
GHz =    0.00358

Start Time =     743223057648 Ticks
Stop Time  =     743224081856 Ticks

Duration in Ticks   =  1024208
Duration in seconds =  0.2861279855401
--------------------------------------
Timer Frequency in:
Hz  =       3579545
MHz =       3.57955
GHz =    0.00358

Start Time =     743224082065 Ticks
Stop Time  =     743225105999 Ticks

Duration in Ticks   =  1023934
Duration in seconds =  0.2860514394986
--------------------------------------
   P1 = 1024208
   P2 = 1023934
   dif= 274

Solution:P2 is faster than P1



the secand news:
set up Ms Visual Studio 2005 Express
update with Windows Server 2003 Platform SDK
using this environment to compile seti sources

go on now with further optimization of the sources

seti_britta

Hi Britta,

for optimal results, you should use ICC and IPP. Unless you modified the sources to use the fftw wrapper that MKL provides, it's not necessary (MKL).

Go for it

Regards,
Simon.

It would be interesting to know if they're products of separate teams within Intel which compete, or basically the same code under the hood with different interface and focus. My assumption has been the latter, in which case whichever one has the most recent release should be "better" in some sense. But note that "better" does not always mean "faster".
                                                                             Joe

Does this mean I might have some newly compiled apps to test soon?