On 12/23/10 2:52 AM, bearophile wrote:
Andrei:
I'm thinking what to do about iota, which has good features but exacts
too much cost on tight loop performance. One solution would be to define
iota to be the simple, forward range that I defined as Iota2 in my
previous post. Then, we need a different name for the full-fledged iota
(random-access, has known length, iterates through the same numbers
forward and backward etc). Ideas?
Is improving the compiler instead an option?
It's more of a separate matter than an option. Iota currently does a
fair amount of work for floating-point types, and a contemporary
optimizer cannot be reasonably expected to simplify that code.
Andrei
