On Feb 26, 2014, at 1:53 PM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
>> Thanks for the suggestion, Paul. Assuming it is correct, in what way would
>> this be a better approach? (I apologize for being obtuse.)
>>
>
> IMHO it is a simpler solution. It's a cache line that requires updating not
> the cache line*s*, as the current approach can potentially knock out cache
> lines for other radixes.
>
>
>> If it looks worth doing, I'll file another issue to track the idea. I
>> already have it on my list anyway to follow up on Alan Eliasen's comment in
>> the BigInteger code:
>>
>> * This could be changed to a more complicated caching method using
>> * {@code Future}.
>> */
>> private static BigInteger getRadixConversionCache(int radix, int exponent)
>> {
>>
>
> Not quite sure what that would entail.
I filed Yet Another Issue to keep track of this.
Thanks,
Brian
