On 10/26/2013 01:35 AM, Tim Shen wrote:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Paolo Carlini
wrote:
Uhm, cute, didn't consider the naming issue, but I'm not sure we want to do
that... What about having the code in a split.h and including it from
split.cc and split_bfs.cc instead?
Sorry for late.
P
On 10/25/2013 04:22 PM, Tim Shen wrote:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Paolo Carlini
wrote:
Ah good. Can't you just have split_bfs.cc defining the
_GLIBCXX_REGEX_DFS_QUANTIFIERS_LIMIT macro and including the existing
split.cc?
Here :) Hack the __FILE__ macro to let it report correctly.
Uhm,
Hi,
On 10/25/2013 04:05 PM, Tim Shen wrote:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 5:07 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Ok. Are there measurable performance changes at this point? I'm asking
because we should take the chance and add performance testcases when we
improve the performance: later, unless somebody files
On 10/25/2013 06:30 AM, Tim Shen wrote:
This patch optimizes BFS executor by removing quantifier tracking, but
precisely control the assignment order of the variable recording the
optimal solution.
Ok. Are there measurable performance changes at this point? I'm asking
because we should take the
