On the 0x1F8 day of Apache Harmony Naveen Neelakantam wrote: > >> 2) Also in updateMemDistanceWithPredecessors, I added an > >> optimization. Essentially, we can take advantage of ProveResult > >> being a lattice (i.e. is monotonic) to prevent some recursive proofs. > > > > oh, the optimization is fine, but seems that it would make a > > suspicious 'Reduced' instead of 'True' sometimes, which still looks > > like OK for our purposes. It won't give us a big performance gain due > > to the sparse nature of the inequality graph.. Though, optimizing > > prematurely makes a lot of fun, so I like it :) I would suggest to > > move the 'if' statement outside the loop because it is a loop > > invariant. Elinimanting this 'break' would be a better style. > > The if statement is not loop invariant because the value of "res" > changes each loop iteration. Am I missing something? As for the > "break", I can definitely rewrite the loop to get rid of it.
Wait a minute, I need to check if my hair became blond. Now "break" looks fine. Sorry:) > > One more to say on the patch: > > + // meetBest(Reduced, x) <= Reduced > > > > should be: > > + // meetBest(Reduced, x) >= Reduced > > (just a comment, but still...) > > > > so, could you, please, refresh the patch with my suggestions > > implemented? > > Will do, once we come to agreement above. we have it now > >> Once again, your code is very good. It is also nice that it matches > >> the algorithm outlined in the ABCD paper wherever possible. > > > > heh:) did you notice that "line 9" of the algorithm? (Figure 5 in the > > paper). I replaced '>' by '<', and only after that it worked > > (classic_abcd_solver.cpp:645). I suppose, it's a bug in the > > paper. Could you, please, double check this? > > I did not notice it before, but I agree that the bug is in the paper. I love this game :) > >> Is there something else I can do to help? > > > > Yeah, now it's my step. We would do our best if I publish my > > HIR->Igraph conversion scratches (they don't work yet). > > > > Unfortunately, I am so busy with ClassLoaderTest which fails after > > some seemingly correct optimizations in 'memopt'.. I'll open the > > sources in a couple of days. Can you wait so long? > > No worries. I am also working on other things, but would like to try > and move this forward whenever possible. OK, I'll submit the code this week. Maybe, even tomorrow. (I have some progress on ClassLoaderTest) -- Egor Pasko, Intel Managed Runtime Division --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
