No, that is OK. :-) The matter is that I've implemented two algorithms solving the same problem. For one of them, I can easily derive the time complexity and even verify - by performing several tests and then using the least squares fitting. Nevertheless, for the other algorithm the expected time complexity ( quite well known in general :-) ) and measured values do no fit together. As I'm trying to use as large inputs as possible as well as the short ones, I was wondering, whether there might be some distortion due to added values to the counter of reductions because of garbage collection - now I know that not ( verified such a way, so that I changed the amount of allocated memory by hugs and run the same command => once with GC, the other time without :-) ). Sorry for distortion in the list. Dusan
Daniel Fischer wrote:

Am Mittwoch, 24. August 2005 16:55 schrieb Dusan Kolar:

Hello,

  Even if I know number of reductions should not be used
to anything important I'm quite confused with values I get.
Is garbage collection somehow affecting the number of
reductions? I have always thought not, but... ;-)

  Thx,

   Dusan


What is confusing you?
Different numbers of reductions for the same computation?
That would probably be due to the fact that named entities are stored and not 
re-evaluated.

Cheers,

Daniel

-- 

 Dusan Kolar            tel: +420 54 114 1238
 UIFS FIT VUT Brno      fax: +420 54 114 1270
 Bozetechova 2       e-mail: kolar@fit.vutbr.cz
 Brno 612 66
 Czech Republic

--