On 02/09/16 20:53 +0200, Eelis wrote:
On 2016-09-02 20:20, Eelis van der Weegen wrote:
On 2016-08-31 14:45, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Is this significantly faster than just using
uniform_int_distribution<_IntType>{0, __bound - 1}(__g) so we don't
need to duplicate the logic? (And people maintainin
On 2016-09-02 20:20, Eelis van der Weegen wrote:
On 2016-08-31 14:45, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Is this significantly faster than just using
uniform_int_distribution<_IntType>{0, __bound - 1}(__g) so we don't
need to duplicate the logic? (And people maintaining the code won't
reconvince themselves
On 2016-08-31 14:45, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Is this significantly faster than just using
uniform_int_distribution<_IntType>{0, __bound - 1}(__g) so we don't
need to duplicate the logic? (And people maintaining the code won't
reconvince themselves it's correct every time they look at it :-)
[..]
On 01/09/16 17:31 +0200, Eelis van der Weegen wrote:
On 2016-09-01 17:14, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 31/08/16 13:45 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 03/05/16 16:42 +0200, Eelis van der Weegen wrote:
Ah, thanks, I forgot to re-attach when I sent to include the libstdc++ list.
On 2016-05-03 14:3
On 01/09/16 17:27 +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Thu, 1 Sep 2016, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
+ const __uc_type __comp_range = __swap_range * (__swap_range + 1);
If __swap_range is 3, then __comp_range is 10 and
???
Bah :-)
Thanks. I guess I read the code correctly the other day at leas
On 2016-09-01 17:14, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 31/08/16 13:45 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 03/05/16 16:42 +0200, Eelis van der Weegen wrote:
Ah, thanks, I forgot to re-attach when I sent to include the libstdc++ list.
On 2016-05-03 14:38, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
ENOPATCH
On 1 May 2016 at
On Thu, 1 Sep 2016, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
+ const __uc_type __comp_range = __swap_range * (__swap_range + 1);
If __swap_range is 3, then __comp_range is 10 and
???
--
Marc Glisse
On 31/08/16 13:45 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 03/05/16 16:42 +0200, Eelis van der Weegen wrote:
Ah, thanks, I forgot to re-attach when I sent to include the libstdc++ list.
On 2016-05-03 14:38, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
ENOPATCH
On 1 May 2016 at 15:21, Eelis wrote:
Sorry, forgot to includ
On 03/05/16 16:42 +0200, Eelis van der Weegen wrote:
Ah, thanks, I forgot to re-attach when I sent to include the libstdc++ list.
On 2016-05-03 14:38, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
ENOPATCH
On 1 May 2016 at 15:21, Eelis wrote:
Sorry, forgot to include the libstdc++ list.
On 2016-05-01 16:18, Eelis
On 2016-05-01 16:18, Eelis wrote:
The attached patch optimizes std::shuffle for the very common case
where the generator range is large enough that a single invocation
can produce two swap positions.
This reduces the runtime of the following testcase by 37% on my machine:
Gentle ping. :) Did
Ah, thanks, I forgot to re-attach when I sent to include the libstdc++ list.
On 2016-05-03 14:38, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
ENOPATCH
On 1 May 2016 at 15:21, Eelis wrote:
Sorry, forgot to include the libstdc++ list.
On 2016-05-01 16:18, Eelis wrote:
Hi,
The attached patch optimizes std::shuff
ENOPATCH
On 1 May 2016 at 15:21, Eelis wrote:
> Sorry, forgot to include the libstdc++ list.
>
> On 2016-05-01 16:18, Eelis wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The attached patch optimizes std::shuffle for the very common case
>> where the generator range is large enough that a single invocation
>> can produc
Sorry, forgot to include the libstdc++ list.
On 2016-05-01 16:18, Eelis wrote:
Hi,
The attached patch optimizes std::shuffle for the very common case
where the generator range is large enough that a single invocation
can produce two swap positions.
This reduces the runtime of the following tes
Hi,
The attached patch optimizes std::shuffle for the very common case
where the generator range is large enough that a single invocation
can produce two swap positions.
This reduces the runtime of the following testcase by 37% on my machine:
int main()
{
std::mt
14 matches
Mail list logo
