On 29.05.2012 10:52, Era Scarecrow wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 May 2012 at 06:30:37 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
You surely haven't looked at the source code did you? :)
It's conceptualy non per bit '-', it's a set difference...
I recall looking at it, but to me that just didn't make sense. I could
On Tuesday, 29 May 2012 at 06:30:37 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
You surely haven't looked at the source code did you? :)
It's conceptualy non per bit '-', it's a set difference...
I recall looking at it, but to me that just didn't make sense. I
could add subtract back and update it (Not many
Not at all. Once you established that it's not a pointer namely since
every pointer to size_t is word aligned (unless constructed by hand).
You could use it's lowest bit as marker then. It's 0 state won't disturb
pointer usual semantics, when it's set to 1 it's obviously
... in-place bit array.
On 29.05.2012 4:13, Era Scarecrow wrote:
On Monday, 28 May 2012 at 21:59:36 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
Check your math. Xor != sub.
1 ^ 0 == 1, 0 ^ 1 == 1;
Compare with
1 0 == 1, 0 1 == 0.
That is, for one thing, sub is asymmetric :)
Hmm well subs would all happen at the 1 bit level. So
On 29.05.2012 6:09, Era Scarecrow wrote:
On Sunday, 27 May 2012 at 18:25:38 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
AFAIK, there are no plans to get rid of it due to the bool packing in
std.container.Array, so if there's anything that you can do to improve
it, go right ahead. Help is welcome.
Annoying,
That is, for one thing, sub is asymmetric :)
Hmm well subs would all happen at the 1 bit level. So let's
compare.
xor
0 ^ 0 = 0
0 ^ 1 = 1
1 ^ 0 = 1
1 ^ 1 = 0
sub
0 - 0 = 0
0 - 1 = -1 (or non-zero/true, truncates to 1)
1 - 0 = 1
1 - 1 = 0
Sorry, seems the same unless we are going with carry
On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 04:09:48 Era Scarecrow wrote:
> On Sunday, 27 May 2012 at 18:25:38 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > AFAIK, there are no plans to get rid of it due to the bool
> > packing in std.container.Array, so if there's anything that you
> > can do to improve it, go right ahead. Help
On Sunday, 27 May 2012 at 18:25:38 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
AFAIK, there are no plans to get rid of it due to the bool
packing in std.container.Array, so if there's anything that you
can do to improve it, go right ahead. Help is welcome.
Annoying, twice I've tried to branch/fork to post
On Monday, 28 May 2012 at 21:59:36 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
Check your math. Xor != sub.
1 ^ 0 == 1, 0 ^ 1 == 1;
Compare with
1 0 == 1, 0 1 == 0.
That is, for one thing, sub is asymmetric :)
Hmm well subs would all happen at the 1 bit level. So let's
compare.
xor
0 ^ 0 = 0
0 ^ 1 =
On 29.05.2012 1:39, Era Scarecrow wrote:
On Sunday, 27 May 2012 at 18:25:38 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
AFAIK, there are no plans to get rid of it due to the bool packing in
std.container.Array, so if there's anything that you can do to improve
it, go right ahead. Help is welcome.
Well so far
On Sunday, 27 May 2012 at 18:25:38 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
AFAIK, there are no plans to get rid of it due to the bool
packing in std.container.Array, so if there's anything that you
can do to improve it, go right ahead. Help is welcome.
Well so far the biggest problem I have is trying to
Hi
I have a project on github,
https://github.com/jarlah/d2-simple-socket-server, where I have
added very custom logger library. In this logger library I have
an enum LogLevel that looks like enum LogLevel { ALL, INFO,
WARNING etc }
Questions:
1. Is there a way to convert from string "INFO
I didn't use divisions or remainders, only multiplications. I've
changed it so it only uses addition and now it still doesn't
outperform a version that only checks odd's. it's not as fast as your
version where every index corresponds to i*2+1 because I fill every
even number with false...
I tried using 6k+-1 for all primes and for some reason it
performed
slower. I think I have something completely inefficient
somewhere,
can't figure out where though.
You aren't, by any chance, using divisions or remainders? those
are much slower than, say, multiplications (unless the divisor
i
I tried using 6k+-1 for all primes and for some reason it performed
slower. I think I have something completely inefficient somewhere,
can't figure out where though.
I think it has something to do with me increasing k and then
multiplying with k while I could have simply added 6 to K...
and I have
15 matches
Mail list logo
