On 12/21/2013 07:57 PM, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 12/21/2013 05:44 PM, Charles Hixson wrote:
On 12/21/2013 03:52 PM, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 12/21/2013 03:13 PM, John Colvin wrote:
Ideally the compiler will optimise your version to be fast, but
you may
find you get better performance by doing
On 12/22/2013 01:04 AM, Charles Hixson wrote:
Nice, but the block is longer than 8 bytes, so I should use a for (i =
n; i n + 8; i++) rather than a foreach, and index off of i.
Makes sense. That reminded me of the Phobos function that does exactly
what you want. Have you considered
On Sunday, 22 December 2013 at 03:57:38 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 12/21/2013 05:44 PM, Charles Hixson wrote:
On 12/21/2013 03:52 PM, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 12/21/2013 03:13 PM, John Colvin wrote:
Ideally the compiler will optimise your version to be fast,
but you may
find you get better
On 12/22/2013 02:22 AM, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 12/22/2013 01:04 AM, Charles Hixson wrote:
Nice, but the block is longer than 8 bytes, so I should use a for (i =
n; i n + 8; i++) rather than a foreach, and index off of i.
Makes sense. That reminded me of the Phobos function that does exactly
I was planning to ask if there were a better way to do this, but instead
I need to ask what's my mistake?
For some reason, if called with an uninitialized ubyte array, and an
index of 0, it returns a value of 8, even though all the values in the
array are 0.
The error has to be somewhere in the
On Saturday, 21 December 2013 at 22:29:59 UTC, ponce wrote:
On Saturday, 21 December 2013 at 22:22:09 UTC, Charles Hixson
wrote:
I was planning to ask if there were a better way to do this,
but instead I need to ask what's my mistake?
For some reason, if called with an uninitialized ubyte
On Saturday, 21 December 2013 at 22:22:09 UTC, Charles Hixson
wrote:
I was planning to ask if there were a better way to do this,
but instead I need to ask what's my mistake?
For some reason, if called with an uninitialized ubyte array,
and an index of 0, it returns a value of 8, even though
On 12/21/2013 02:31 PM, ponce wrote:
On Saturday, 21 December 2013 at 22:29:59 UTC, ponce wrote:
On Saturday, 21 December 2013 at 22:22:09 UTC, Charles Hixson wrote:
I was planning to ask if there were a better way to do this, but
instead I need to ask what's my mistake?
For some reason, if
On 12/21/2013 03:13 PM, John Colvin wrote:
Ideally the compiler will optimise your version to be fast, but you may
find you get better performance by doing the bit manipulations eplicitly:
Assuming that the program needs to support only big endian and little
endian systems (i.e. excluding
On Saturday, 21 December 2013 at 23:52:05 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 12/21/2013 03:13 PM, John Colvin wrote:
Ideally the compiler will optimise your version to be fast,
but you may
find you get better performance by doing the bit
manipulations eplicitly:
Assuming that the program needs to
On 12/21/2013 03:52 PM, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 12/21/2013 03:13 PM, John Colvin wrote:
Ideally the compiler will optimise your version to be fast, but you may
find you get better performance by doing the bit manipulations
eplicitly:
Assuming that the program needs to support only big endian
On 12/21/2013 05:44 PM, Charles Hixson wrote:
On 12/21/2013 03:52 PM, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 12/21/2013 03:13 PM, John Colvin wrote:
Ideally the compiler will optimise your version to be fast, but you may
find you get better performance by doing the bit manipulations
eplicitly:
Assuming that
12 matches
Mail list logo
