On 09/05/2012 11:53 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 08/30/2012 06:37 PM, Benjamin De Kosnik wrote:
Nice! Thanks.
Here's a small patchlet to set the abi version to .18. With this,
check-abi will pass.
tested x86/linux
Benjamin, is this still uncommitted? I'm seeing abi_check failing...
Ok, now I s
On 08/30/2012 06:37 PM, Benjamin De Kosnik wrote:
Nice! Thanks.
Here's a small patchlet to set the abi version to .18. With this,
check-abi will pass.
tested x86/linux
Benjamin, is this still uncommitted? I'm seeing abi_check failing...
Thanks,
Paolo.
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 3:59 AM, Miles Bader wrote:
> Can this replace the current mersenne twister implementation in
> std:: once the endianness issue, etc, have been worked out?
No, it produces different numbers.
Can this replace the current mersenne twister implementation in
std:: once the endianness issue, etc, have been worked out?
-miles
--
Is it true that nothing can be known? If so how do we know this? -Woody Allen
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 14:34:40 -0400
Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Paolo Carlini
> wro
> > The substance isn't of course. But normally we don't have __gnu_cxx
> > things in the same std header. Can't we have a new ext/random and
> > put it in there? If we can separate t
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Paolo Carlini wro
> The substance isn't of course. But normally we don't have __gnu_cxx things
> in the same std header. Can't we have a new ext/random and put it in there?
> If we can separate the new code to it, I think people would not even object
> to the targ
On 8/29/12 4:19 PM, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
The header so far contains the random number engines
documented in the header. None of these are well suited for modern
CPUs. There is a variant of the Mersenne twister engines which is
explicitly designed to perform well on CPUs with SIMD instructions
