Strange counter-performance in an alternative `decimalLength9` function
Basile B.
b2.temp at gmx.com
Thu Feb 27 19:46:23 UTC 2020
On Thursday, 27 February 2020 at 17:17:32 UTC, Bruce Carneal
wrote:
> On Thursday, 27 February 2020 at 17:11:48 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
>> On Thursday, 27 February 2020 at 15:29:02 UTC, Bruce Carneal
>> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 27 February 2020 at 08:52:09 UTC, Basile B.
>>> wrote:
>>> I will post my code if there is any meaningful difference in
>>> your subsequent results.
>>
>> give me something I can compile and verify. I'm not there to
>> steal, if you found something you can still propose it to the
>> repos that would take advantage of the optim.
>
> I'm not at all concerned about theft of trivial code. I am
> concerned that a simple error in my code will live on in a
> copy/paste environment.
>
> Regardless, I'll post the code once I get home. It may be the
> only way to communicate the central problem as I see it:
> imprecision in the test specification (the input specification).
Yes please, post the benchmark method. You see the benchmarks I
run with your version are always slowest. I'm aware that rndGen
(and generaly any uniform rnd func) is subject to a bias but I
dont thing this bias maters much in the case we talk about.
More information about the Digitalmars-d-learn
mailing list