#16374: better two_squares, three_squares, four_squares for small input
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: vdelecroix | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.3
Component: number theory | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
Authors: Vincent Delecroix | Reviewers:
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
u/vdelecroix/16374 | a2b31ca5ec86eaed275a854e41cb5fd7a3ce5c95
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by jdemeyer):
Replying to [comment:7 vdelecroix]:
> Anyway, I am pretty sure that this is the kind of optimization that gcc
takes care of with the option "-O3".
Sure, write the most readable code and let the compiler do its job.
> About the dependencies, I am not sure whether this ticket should go
before or after #16308...
Even better: make these two tickets independent and then make a third
ticket to integrate them.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16374#comment:10>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica,
and MATLAB
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
