ise, it is algorithmically correct.
On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 7:40 PM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 06/10/20 00:25 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >I'm sorry it's taken a year to review this properly. Comments below ...
> >
> >On 27/09/19 14:18 -0400, Daniel Lemire wrote:
&g
>
> >The condition above checks that __urngrange == 2**64-1 which means
> >that U::max() - U::min() is the maximum 64-bit value, which means
> >means U::max()==2**64-1 and U::min()==0. So if U::min() is 0 we don't
> >need to subtract it.
>
That sounds correct.
(This is a revised patch proposal. I am revising both the description
and the code itself.)
Even on recent processors, integer division is relatively expensive.
The current implementation of std::uniform_int_distribution typically
requires two divisions by invocation:
// downscaling
Even on recent processors, integer division is relatively expensive.
The current implementation of std::uniform_int_distribution typically
requires two divisions by invocation:
// downscaling
const __uctype __uerange = __urange + 1; // __urange can be zero
const __uctype _
