On 16/07/19 18:40 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
   I eventually spent much more time working on the inplace_merge
performance bench.
   And the results do not confirm the theory:
Before patch:
inplace_merge.cc           bench 1 / 1 memory          243rÂ
Hi
I eventually spent much more time working on the inplace_merge
performance bench.
And the results do not confirm the theory:
Before patch:
inplace_merge.cc bench 1 / 1 memory 243r 227u
17s 1216mem 5pf
inplace_merge.cc bench 1 / 4
On 12/21/18 9:57 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 29/10/18 07:06 +0100, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
Some feedback regarding this patch ?
Sorry this got missed, please resubmit during stage 1.
You haven't CC'd the original patch author (chang jc) to give them a
chance to comment on your
On 29/10/18 07:06 +0100, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
Some feedback regarding this patch ?
Sorry this got missed, please resubmit during stage 1.
You haven't CC'd the original patch author (chang jc) to give them a
chance to comment on your proposed changes to the patch.
The attached PDF
Hi
Some feedback regarding this patch ?
Thanks,
François
On 8/21/18 10:34 PM, François Dumont wrote:
I missed a test that was failing because of this patch. So I revert a
small part of it and here is the new proposal.
Tested under Linux x86_64, ok to commit ?
François
On 24/07/2018
I missed a test that was failing because of this patch. So I revert a
small part of it and here is the new proposal.
Tested under Linux x86_64, ok to commit ?
François
On 24/07/2018 12:22, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
Any chance to review this patch ?
François
On 06/06/2018 18:39,
Hi
Any chance to review this patch ?
François
On 06/06/2018 18:39, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
I review and rework this proposal. I noticed that the same idea to
limit buffer size within inplace_merge also apply to stable_sort.
I also change the decision when buffer is too
