For that you may wish to explore Peter Luschny's "prime swing" factorial
algorithm and variations!
https://oeis.org/A000142/a000142.pdf
And implementations in various languages including go:
https://github.com/PeterLuschny/Fast-Factorial-Functions
> On Jan 8, 2024, at 9:22 PM, Rob Pike wrote:
Here's an example where it's the bottleneck: ivy factorial
!1e7
1.20242340052e+65657059
)cpu
1m10s (1m10s user, 167.330ms sys)
-rob
On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 2:21 PM Bakul Shah wrote:
> Perhaps you were thinking of this?
>
> At iteration number k, the value xk contains O(klog(k)) digits,
Perhaps you were thinking of this?
At iteration number k, the value xk contains O(klog(k)) digits, thus the
computation of xk+1 = kxk has cost O(klog(k)). Finally, the total cost with
this basic approach is O(2log(2)+¼+n log(n)) = O(n2log(n)).
A better approach is the binary splitting : it just
On Tuesday 9 January 2024 at 3:33:42 am UTC+11 Mike Schinkel wrote:
It doesn't have to be imaginative nor obfuscated to be cognizant of naming
conflicts.
Thanks, you've convinced me that it needs to change so I'll do it now and I
might steal that name (vermock)!
On Tuesday 9 January 2024
The overflow fix is pending: CL 554617
I filed https://github.com/golang/go/issues/65027 for a possibly faster
mulRange implementation.
- gri
On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 11:47 AM Robert Griesemer wrote:
> Hello John;
>
> Thanks for your interest in this code.
>
> In a (long past) implementation of
Hello John;
Thanks for your interest in this code.
In a (long past) implementation of the factorial function, I noticed that
computing a * (a+1) * (a+2) * ... (b-1) * b was much faster when computed
in a recursive fashion than when computed iteratively: the reason (I
believed) was that the
Hi Miecc,
Did you get this working, I am having exact same issues, wondering if you
ever able to get this through? Or using gccgo?
I am using gcc11 for this.
On Thursday 24 March 2022 at 02:31:28 UTC+5:30 miecc kn wrote:
> Hello everyone, first time here so please bear with me.
> I got the
On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 9:39:31 PM UTC-5 Corin Lawson wrote:
*also thoughts on the mock lib (apologies for the lack of naming
creativity),*
On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 9:00:24 AM UTC-5 TheDiveO wrote:
*As for the naming: kudos for naming it what it is, clear and concise*
A
Thank you both. I should've looked at the spec first.
On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 10:34 PM 'Dan Kortschak' via golang-nuts
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2024-01-08 at 06:21 +0100, 'Axel Wagner' via golang-nuts wrote:
> > The "missing return" error is defined in the spec, by requiring a
> > function to end in a
a quick first lock looks promising to me: I like the blog post, as it
does IMHO a gentle introduction to your angle of attack. Having used
mocking (or one of its twins/cousins/... for those who insist on this not
being mocking, alas) on Python I've up to now found the Go mock packages to
be
That should work. Are you sure that those ellipses (...) does not contain
some other pointers?
Brent Bailey a következőt írta (2024. január 8., hétfő, 3:06:35 UTC+1):
> I'm trying to pass a pointer to an external C library using Go 1.21 and
> get the following runtime panic:
> panic: runtime
11 matches
Mail list logo
