That should work. Are you sure that those ellipses (...) does not contain
some other pointers?
Brent Bailey a következőt írta (2024. január 8., hétfő, 3:06:35 UTC+1):
> I'm trying to pass a pointer to an external C library using Go 1.21 and
> get the following runtime panic:
> panic: runtime er
a quick first lock looks promising to me: I like the blog post, as it
does IMHO a gentle introduction to your angle of attack. Having used
mocking (or one of its twins/cousins/... for those who insist on this not
being mocking, alas) on Python I've up to now found the Go mock packages to
be d
Thank you both. I should've looked at the spec first.
On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 10:34 PM 'Dan Kortschak' via golang-nuts
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2024-01-08 at 06:21 +0100, 'Axel Wagner' via golang-nuts wrote:
> > The "missing return" error is defined in the spec, by requiring a
> > function to end in a t
On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 9:39:31 PM UTC-5 Corin Lawson wrote:
*also thoughts on the mock lib (apologies for the lack of naming
creativity),*
On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 9:00:24 AM UTC-5 TheDiveO wrote:
*As for the naming: kudos for naming it what it is, clear and concise*
A different
Hi Miecc,
Did you get this working, I am having exact same issues, wondering if you
ever able to get this through? Or using gccgo?
I am using gcc11 for this.
On Thursday 24 March 2022 at 02:31:28 UTC+5:30 miecc kn wrote:
> Hello everyone, first time here so please bear with me.
> I got the t
Hello John;
Thanks for your interest in this code.
In a (long past) implementation of the factorial function, I noticed that
computing a * (a+1) * (a+2) * ... (b-1) * b was much faster when computed
in a recursive fashion than when computed iteratively: the reason (I
believed) was that the iterat
The overflow fix is pending: CL 554617
I filed https://github.com/golang/go/issues/65027 for a possibly faster
mulRange implementation.
- gri
On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 11:47 AM Robert Griesemer wrote:
> Hello John;
>
> Thanks for your interest in this code.
>
> In a (long past) implementation of th
On Tuesday 9 January 2024 at 3:33:42 am UTC+11 Mike Schinkel wrote:
It doesn't have to be imaginative nor obfuscated to be cognizant of naming
conflicts.
Thanks, you've convinced me that it needs to change so I'll do it now and I
might steal that name (vermock)!
On Tuesday 9 January 2024 a
Perhaps you were thinking of this?
At iteration number k, the value xk contains O(klog(k)) digits, thus the
computation of xk+1 = kxk has cost O(klog(k)). Finally, the total cost with
this basic approach is O(2log(2)+¼+n log(n)) = O(n2log(n)).
A better approach is the binary splitting : it just
Here's an example where it's the bottleneck: ivy factorial
!1e7
1.20242340052e+65657059
)cpu
1m10s (1m10s user, 167.330ms sys)
-rob
On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 2:21 PM Bakul Shah wrote:
> Perhaps you were thinking of this?
>
> At iteration number k, the value xk contains O(klog(k)) digits, thus
For that you may wish to explore Peter Luschny's "prime swing" factorial
algorithm and variations!
https://oeis.org/A000142/a000142.pdf
And implementations in various languages including go:
https://github.com/PeterLuschny/Fast-Factorial-Functions
> On Jan 8, 2024, at 9:22 PM, Rob Pike wrote:
11 matches
Mail list logo