#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 | 17883e34f96f7f78f35f56bad527dcbaa728169d
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by vdelecroix):
Replying to [comment:26 leif]:
> P.S.: On modern (64-bit) AMD CPUs, not using squaring is significantly
faster, while on Intel CPUs there's apparently not much of a difference,
with I think a slight advantage of doing squaring explicitly (i.e.,
integer multiplication), but it's hard to get reliable timings there.
>
> (And GCC definitely doesn't do the transformation either way.)
I would prefer to keep the multiplication as it is much more readable.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16374#comment:28>
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.
