Am Freitag, 10. August 2007 schrieben Sie:
To me, very fast (millions of lines a second) lexical analyzers are
trivial to write by hand, and I really don't see the point of tools,
and certainly not the utility of any theory in writing such code.
If anything the formalism of a finite state
Hi,
my questions is, why not use the element construction algorithm? The Thomson
Algorithm creates an epsilon-NFA which needs quite a lot of memory. The
element construction creates an NFA directly and therefor has fewer states.
Well, this is only interesting in the scanner creation which is
can be quite painful, but it gives better
results than the linear approach.
cu,
Ronny Peine
pgpVqQpBRZlaN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Hi,
maybe http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/ecetr/123/ would also be interesting for you.
There, a quadratic algorithm for finding a nearly optimal set of compiler
flags is described. The results are quite promising and i have also tested it
on my own benchmarkingsuite with good results.
cu,
Ronny
Hi all,
i'm going into holiday and i wish you all of the gcc-team a happy christmas
and thanks for all your work, even though it is still to early for christmas
wishes :).
cu,
Ronny Peine
Hi,
Am Freitag, 16. Dezember 2005 19:50 schrieb Sebastian Pop:
Ronny Peine wrote:
-ftree-loop-linear is removed from the testingflags in gcc-4.0.2 because
it leads to an endless loop in neural net in nbench.
Could you fill a bug report for this one?
Done.
cu,
Ronny Peine
.
The next time i write a bugreport, i should more concentrate on it, sorry
again for this.
cu,
Ronny Peine
work on improving
gcc.
Thanks for reading,
Ronny Peine
Hi,
i forgot to post the best cflags for each gcc-version and benchmark.
Here are the results:
gcc-3.3.6:
nbench: -s -static -O3 -march=athlon-xp -fomit-frame-pointer -pipe
-fforce-addr -fsched-spec-load -fmove-all-movables -ffast-math -ftracer
-funroll-loops -funroll-all-loops -mfpmath=sse
Well this article was referenced by http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/754/,
so i don't think it's an unreliable source.
It would be nice if you wouldn't try to insult me Joe Buck, that's not
very productive.
Robert Dewar wrote:
Marcin Dalecki wrote:
Are we a bit too obedient today? Look I was
Well, you are right, this discussion becomes a bit off topic.
I think 0^0 should be 1 in the complex case, too. Otherwise the complex
and real definitions would collide.
Example:
use complex number 0+i*0 then this should be handled equivalent to the
real number 0. Otherwise the programmer would
This proof is absolutely correct and in no way bogus, it is lectured to
nearly every mathematics student PERIOD
But you are right, if the standards handles this otherwise, then this
doesn't help in any case.
Robert Dewar wrote:
Ronny Peine wrote:
I hope that this make things clearer for some
Hi again,
a small proof.
if A and X are real numbers and A0 then
A^X := exp(X*ln(A)) (Definition in analytical mathematics).
0^0 = lim A-0, A0 (exp(0*ln(A)) = 1 if exp(X*ln(A)) is continual continued
The complex case can be derived from this (0^(0+ib) = 0^0*0^ib = 1 =
0^a*0^(i*0) ).
Well, i know
Hi,
Marcin Dalecki wrote:
On 2005-03-08, at 01:47, Ronny Peine wrote:
Hi again,
a small proof.
How cute.
if A and X are real numbers and A0 then
A^X := exp(X*ln(A)) (Definition in analytical mathematics).
0^0 = lim A-0, A0 (exp(0*ln(A)) = 1 if exp(X*ln(A)) is continual
continued
The complex
Joe Buck wrote:
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 01:47:13AM +0100, Ronny Peine wrote:
Hi again,
a small proof.
if A and X are real numbers and A0 then
A^X := exp(X*ln(A)) (Definition in analytical mathematics).
That is an incomplete definition, as 0^X is well-defined.
0^0 = lim A-0, A0 (exp(0*ln(A)) = 1
Ronny Peine wrote:
Joe Buck wrote:
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 01:47:13AM +0100, Ronny Peine wrote:
Hi again,
a small proof.
if A and X are real numbers and A0 then
A^X := exp(X*ln(A)) (Definition in analytical mathematics).
That is an incomplete definition, as 0^X is well-defined.
0^0 = lim A-0
Ronny Peine wrote:
Well, these were math lectures (Analysis 1,2 and 3, Function Theory,
Numerical Mathematics and so on). In every lectures it was defined as 1
and in most cases mathematical expressions are mostly tried to transform
in equivalent calculations for the FPU (even though
, not Nan;
I'm not really sure if he means that it should be 1.0 or it should be
NaN but i think he means 1.0.
Ronny Peine wrote:
Hi again,
a small example often used in mathematics and electronic engineering:
the geometric row (Reihe in german, i don't know the correct
expression in english):
sum
18 matches
Mail list logo
