On 3/15/19 6:16 AM, Gregorius van den Hoven wrote: > > My apologies. The algorithm is licensed under GPL 3 so it > > seemed relevant to the GNU community to me. Do you have a > > suggestion for a more appropriate mailing list?
I don't see any need for the somewhat harsh response you received initially. Any effort spent on base algorithms is appreciated; even the benchmarking work is a valuable contribution. Just to orient you, Gegorius, it could well be that your efforts are of interest to the GNU community; however the automake project in particular develops a tool which uses the shell and a macro language to convert Makefile templates into standard Makefiles: this project will not have much need for the work you've done (directly). On Fri, 2019-03-15 at 08:44 -0500, Eric Blake wrote: > > Perhaps GNU coreutils (coreut...@gnu.org), as the owner of the > sort(1) utility, which would be the most likely program to pick up > the use of this code? Or to glibc, to see if it is worth improving > qsort() by using the ideas in your algorithm? Coreutils: https://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/ GNU libc: https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/libc.html Those are good suggestions. I might also suggest contacting the Gnulib folks who maintain a suite of common library functions that many GNU tools use: https://www.gnu.org/software/gnulib/ Although it's off-topic for this list, one thing you might consider in your benchmarking before publishing further is being more clear about the relative number of key checks per algorithm. Binary searches on integers are likely not the most common type for qsort() and other general-purpose binary searches: searching on strings is likely much more common. There the cost of the key checks dwarfs the rest of the costs so algorithms with the fewest key checks will perform better. Thanks for your work and interest in the GNU project!
