Any chance those performance tests could be checked in?
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 7:15 PM, Howard Hinnant <[email protected]> wrote: > On Aug 17, 2014, at 9:22 PM, Eric Fiselier <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Howard, > > > > Thanks for the advice. I'll make sure to performance test these changes > without moving forward. > > I also appreciate the insight. > > > > > 0 is a valid bucket count. An upward bump of 0 buckets goes to 2. > > 1 is considered not a power of 2, but it rounded up to 2. > > 2 is considered prime, not a power of 2. Thus a upward bump off bucket > size 2 goes to 5, not 4. > > > > Are you referring to the input/output from the __next_power2 function? > > Passing 1 to __next_power2 causes undefined behavior because it passes 0 > to __clz. > > > > I'll consider just backing out these changes and renaming the functions > so they don't imply mathematical accuracy. > > I’m not saying you should back them out. I honestly don’t know. I’m just > saying one should tread with caution here, and use measurement to guide the > way. > > The bottom line is really really how rehash behaves, since the __functions > are all implementation details. And these __functions were purposefully > implemented just to serve __hash_table, and are not general purpose > facilities. > > Howard > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
