Flat profile:
Each sample counts as 0.01 seconds.
% cumulative self self total
time seconds seconds calls Ts/call Ts/call name
96.02 102.23 102.23 _start
3.79 106.27 4.04 _GLOBAL__sub_I__Z10reportTimePKcNSt6chrono8durationIxSt5ratioILx1ELx1000000EEEE
0.19 106.47 0.20 main
0.00 106.47 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 _init
initialization - took - 0 millisecs
glranieri@matrix:~> a1 50000
Pi: 3.146080
initialization - took - 4 millisecs
glranieri@matrix:~> a1 10000
Pi: 3.171200
initialization - took - 0 millisecs
glranieri@matrix:~> a1 100000
Pi: 3.141520
initialization - took - 8 millisecs
glranieri@matrix:~> a1 1000000
Pi: 3.141664
initialization - took - 70 millisecs
glranieri@matrix:~> a1 10000000
Pi: 3.141130
initialization - took - 786 millisecs
glranieri@matrix:~> a1 100000000
Pi: 3.141698
initialization - took - 9426 millisecs
glranieri@matrix:~> a1 1000000000
Pi: 3.141604
initialization - took - 95026 millisecs
glranieri@matrix:~> a1 100000000
The reason I chose calculating pi is because in breaking down the loop into portions that can be executed by the tasks. Something I find interesting is that the number is so large that the calculation, although close, isn't accurate. Only by having a bigger and bigger number does the number get closer and closer to being true in the conventional sense without using precision point calculation. Since that is the case, optimizing will allow the program to use a bigger number in a quicker time.Flat profile:
Each sample counts as 0.01 seconds.
% cumulative self self total
time seconds seconds calls Ts/call Ts/call name
96.02 102.23 102.23 _start
3.79 106.27...