subject:"later vs. co"

Re: later vs. co

2016-11-17 Thread Joe Bogner

Great! To add to the dialog, I am not surprised by co/in-row being similar. I might have actually thought that co would be slightly slower. This task is CPU bound which won't get any benefit from switching coroutines, whereas later spawns new processes (workers) to take advantage of multi-core.

Re: later vs. co

2016-11-17 Thread Alexander Burger

Hi Mike, On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 05:01:24PM +0200, Mike Pechkin wrote: > https://bitbucket.org/mihailp/tankfeeder/raw/43d62edb11d56b4ffada4f728ab59b5455c97fbc/pow.l > > https://bitmessage.org/wiki/Proof_of_work Great news! Thanks! ♪♫ Alex -- UNSUBSCRIBE:

later vs. co

2016-11-17 Thread Mike Pechkin

hi, https://bitbucket.org/mihailp/tankfeeder/raw/43d62edb11d56b4ffada4f728ab59b5455c97fbc/pow.l https://bitmessage.org/wiki/Proof_of_work I've implement more two versions for calculation Bitmessage POW on (later) and (co) functions. It works. environment: o) DELL PowerEdge 430 (modern) o)