"Gilbert Jeiziner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi all, > > i used poker-eval in the past...and it's great and very fast compared to > other implementations i tested. > > there is no direct thread support of poker-eval, right? are there plans in > the future?
If by "thread support" you mean that the poker-eval library is not thread safe, I think that's a correct assumption. > I'm thinking about creating a C++ binding to poker-eval, which will have > transparent thread support, automatic scaling to take advantage of > multi-core cpus. Would such a binding be welcomed? Absolutely. Let me know your gna.org account and you've won a free ticket to svn commits ;-) The only rule here is that each line commited must be associated with a unit test that covers it. Very simple rule that prevents lots of trouble. If you think about modifying the poker-eval code structure, there is an addition requirement. You must write and run benchmarks covering all impacted code and show that you've not introduced something that slows down the library. A number of poker-eval users rely on its performances. Cheers, -- +33 1 76 60 72 81 Loic Dachary mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dachary.org/loic/gpg.txt sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Latitude: 48.86962325498033 Longitude: 2.3623046278953552 _______________________________________________ Pokersource-users mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/pokersource-users
