On 06/30/2012 01:01 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 06/30/2012 12:57 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
My time is rather limited but I'm slowly trying to get another SEP 200
in place.
Something that hit me, when I tried to make up my mind about whether to
have (key, ptr) entries or (key, flags
On 06/30/2012 12:57 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
My time is rather limited but I'm slowly trying to get another SEP 200
in place.
Something that hit me, when I tried to make up my mind about whether to
have (key, ptr) entries or (key, flags, ptr), is that the fast hash
table entries can actua
My time is rather limited but I'm slowly trying to get another SEP 200
in place.
Something that hit me, when I tried to make up my mind about whether to
have (key, ptr) entries or (key, flags, ptr), is that the fast hash
table entries can actually be arbitrary size. So we could make the table
On 12.06.2012 21:46, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
But for much NumPy-using code you'd typically use int32 or int64, and
since long is 32 bits on 32-bit Windows and 64 bits on Linux/Mac,
choosing long sort of maximises inter-platform variation of signatures...
The size of a long is compiler depe
On 06/12/2012 09:46 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 06/12/2012 08:12 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
On 06/12/2012 01:01 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 06/10/2012 11:53 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 1:43 A
On 06/12/2012 08:12 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
On 06/12/2012 01:01 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 06/10/2012 11:53 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 1:43 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
About signatures, a proble
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
> On 06/12/2012 01:01 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>>
>> On 06/10/2012 11:53 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 1:43 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
About signatures, a problem I see with following the C ty
On 06/12/2012 01:01 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 06/10/2012 11:53 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 1:43 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
About signatures, a problem I see with following the C typing is that
the
signature "ill" wouldn't hash the same as "iii" on 32-bit Windows an
On 06/10/2012 11:53 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 1:43 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
About signatures, a problem I see with following the C typing is that the
signature "ill" wouldn't hash the same as "iii" on 32-bit Windows and "iqq"
on 32-bit Linux, and so on. I think that woul
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 1:43 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
> On 06/10/2012 10:23 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 1:00 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 06/10/2012 09:34 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 12:14 AM, Dag Sverre S
On 06/10/2012 10:23 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 1:00 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
On 06/10/2012 09:34 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 12:14 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
Robert Bradshawwrote:
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 10:45 PM, Dag Sv
Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>On 06/10/2012 09:34 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 12:14 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>>
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 10:45 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
> I'd love to not do interning,
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 1:00 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
> On 06/10/2012 09:34 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 12:14 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>>
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 10:45 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote
On 06/10/2012 09:34 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 12:14 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 10:45 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
I'd love to not do interning, but I see no way around it.
No, I want to use the lower 64 bi
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 12:14 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
>
>
> Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>
>>On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 10:45 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>> wrote:
>>> On 06/09/2012 03:21 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
> There's still the
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 10:45 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
> wrote:
>> On 06/09/2012 03:21 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
There's still the indirection through SEP 200 (extensibletype
>slots). We
can
get
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 10:45 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
> On 06/09/2012 03:21 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>>> There's still the indirection through SEP 200 (extensibletype slots). We
>>> can
>>> get rid of that very easily by just maki
On 06/09/2012 08:00 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 06/09/2012 07:45 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 06/09/2012 03:21 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
There's still the indirection through SEP 200 (extensibletype slots).
We can
get rid of th
On 06/09/2012 07:45 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 06/09/2012 03:21 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
There's still the indirection through SEP 200 (extensibletype slots).
We can
get rid of that very easily by just making that table and the
hash
On 06/09/2012 03:21 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
On 06/07/2012 12:35 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 06/07/2012 12:20 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 06/07/2012 12:26 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 2:36 PM
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
> On 06/07/2012 12:35 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>>
>> On 06/07/2012 12:20 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>>>
>>> On 06/07/2012 12:26 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wr
On 06/07/2012 12:35 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 06/07/2012 12:20 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 06/07/2012 12:26 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
On 06/06/2012 11:16 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 1:57 PM, D
On 06/07/2012 12:20 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 06/07/2012 12:26 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
On 06/06/2012 11:16 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
On 06/06/2012 10:41 PM,
On 06/07/2012 12:45 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 06/06/2012 11:00 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
Is the goal then to avoid having to have an interning registry?
Yes, and to avoid invoking an expensive hash function at runtime in
o
On 06/06/2012 11:00 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
Is the goal then to avoid having to have an interning registry?
Yes, and to avoid invoking an expensive hash function at runtime in
order to achieve good distribution.
I don't underst
On 06/07/2012 12:20 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 06/07/2012 12:26 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
On 06/06/2012 11:16 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
On 06/06/2012 10:41 PM,
On 06/07/2012 12:26 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
On 06/06/2012 11:16 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
On 06/06/2012 10:41 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 06/05/2012 12:
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
> On 06/06/2012 11:16 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 06/06/2012 10:41 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 06/05/2012 12:30 AM, Robert Bradshaw wro
Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>On 06/06/2012 11:16 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>> wrote:
>>> On 06/06/2012 10:41 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 06/05/2012 12:30 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>
> I just found http://cmph.s
On 06/06/2012 11:16 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
On 06/06/2012 10:41 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 06/05/2012 12:30 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
I just found http://cmph.sourceforge.net/ which looks quite
interesting. Though the
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
> On 06/06/2012 10:41 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>>
>> On 06/05/2012 12:30 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>>
>>> I just found http://cmph.sourceforge.net/ which looks quite
>>> interesting. Though the resulting hash functions are suppos
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
> On 06/05/2012 10:50 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 06/04/2012 11:43 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Dag Sverre Selje
On 06/06/2012 10:41 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 06/05/2012 12:30 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
I just found http://cmph.sourceforge.net/ which looks quite
interesting. Though the resulting hash functions are supposedly cheap,
I have the feeling that branching is considered cheap in this cont
On 06/05/2012 12:30 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
I just found http://cmph.sourceforge.net/ which looks quite
interesting. Though the resulting hash functions are supposedly cheap,
I have the feeling that branching is considered cheap in this context.
Actually, this lead was *very* promising. I be
On 06/06/2012 11:11 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
Stefan Behnel wrote:
mark florisson, 05.06.2012 22:33:
It doesn't even necessarily have to be about running user code, a
user
could craft data input which causes such a situation. For instance,
let's say we have a just-in-time specialize
On 6 June 2012 10:11, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>
>
> Stefan Behnel wrote:
>
>>mark florisson, 05.06.2012 22:33:
>>> It doesn't even necessarily have to be about running user code, a
>>user
>>> could craft data input which causes such a situation. For instance,
>>> let's say we have a just-in-t
Stefan Behnel wrote:
>mark florisson, 05.06.2012 22:33:
>> It doesn't even necessarily have to be about running user code, a
>user
>> could craft data input which causes such a situation. For instance,
>> let's say we have a just-in-time specializer which specializes a
>> function for the runti
mark florisson, 05.06.2012 22:33:
> It doesn't even necessarily have to be about running user code, a user
> could craft data input which causes such a situation. For instance,
> let's say we have a just-in-time specializer which specializes a
> function for the runtime input types, and the types d
On 06/05/2012 10:50 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
On 06/04/2012 11:43 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
On 06/04/2012 09:44 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
Me and Robert had
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
> On 06/04/2012 11:43 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 06/04/2012 09:44 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
Me and Robert had a long discussion on the
On 5 June 2012 20:33, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> On 06/05/2012 08:02 PM, mark florisson wrote:
>>
>> On 5 June 2012 18:09, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 06/05/2012 07:01 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 06/05/2012 09:25 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>
>
> Da
On 06/04/2012 11:43 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
On 06/04/2012 09:44 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
Me and Robert had a long discussion on the NumFOCUS list about this
already, but I figured it was better to continue it and provide m
On 06/05/2012 08:02 PM, mark florisson wrote:
On 5 June 2012 18:09, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 06/05/2012 07:01 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 06/05/2012 09:25 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 04.06.2012 21:44:
This can cause crashes/stack smashes
etc. if there's low
On 5 June 2012 18:09, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> On 06/05/2012 07:01 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>>
>> On 06/05/2012 09:25 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>>>
>>> Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 04.06.2012 21:44:
This can cause crashes/stack smashes
etc. if there's lower-64bit-of-md5 collisio
On 06/05/2012 07:01 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 06/05/2012 09:25 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 04.06.2012 21:44:
This can cause crashes/stack smashes
etc. if there's lower-64bit-of-md5 collisions, but a) the
probability is incredibly small, b) it would only matter in
sit
On 06/05/2012 09:25 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 04.06.2012 21:44:
This can cause crashes/stack smashes
etc. if there's lower-64bit-of-md5 collisions, but a) the
probability is incredibly small, b) it would only matter in
situations that should cause an Attribut
On 06/05/2012 11:16 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 1:07 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 05.06.2012 00:07:
The C FAQ says 'if you know the contents of your hash table up front you can
devise a perfect hash', but no details, probably just hand-waving.
128 bits
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 1:07 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 05.06.2012 00:07:
>> The C FAQ says 'if you know the contents of your hash table up front you can
>> devise a perfect hash', but no details, probably just hand-waving.
>>
>> 128 bits gives more entropy for perfect hashin
Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 05.06.2012 00:07:
> The C FAQ says 'if you know the contents of your hash table up front you can
> devise a perfect hash', but no details, probably just hand-waving.
>
> 128 bits gives more entropy for perfect hashing: some but not much since each
> shift r is hardwired to
Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 04.06.2012 21:44:
>This can cause crashes/stack smashes
>etc. if there's lower-64bit-of-md5 collisions, but a) the
>probability is incredibly small, b) it would only matter in
>situations that should cause an AttributeError anyway, c) if we
>really care, we
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
>
>
> Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>
>>On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>> wrote:
>>> On 06/04/2012 09:44 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
Me and Robert had a long discussion on the NumFOCUS list about this
al
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
> wrote:
>> On 06/04/2012 09:44 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>>>
>>> Me and Robert had a long discussion on the NumFOCUS list about this
>>> already, but I figured it was better to continue it and provide more
>>> i
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
> On 06/04/2012 09:44 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>>
>> Me and Robert had a long discussion on the NumFOCUS list about this
>> already, but I figured it was better to continue it and provide more
>> in-depth benchmark results here.
>>
On 06/04/2012 09:44 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
Me and Robert had a long discussion on the NumFOCUS list about this
already, but I figured it was better to continue it and provide more
in-depth benchmark results here.
It's basically a new idea of how to provide a vtable based on perfect
hash
Me and Robert had a long discussion on the NumFOCUS list about this
already, but I figured it was better to continue it and provide more
in-depth benchmark results here.
It's basically a new idea of how to provide a vtable based on perfect
hashing, which should be a lot simpler to implement than
55 matches
Mail list logo
