>
> Pushed. Thanks!
and thanks for fixing the comment and your note about O(N)
performance. I don't think it makes much of a difference in real life
to use a different data structure, but nevertheless it is noted for
posterity.
felix
___
Pushed. Thanks!
___
Chicken-hackers mailing list
Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
> >Left as an exercise to you, dear reader. A singly-linked list is
> >simple and straightforward, I find hash-tables ugly and wasteful
> >and will wory about scalability when the time arrives.
>
> IMHO single linked lists do have one drawback: they encode the assumption
> of a specific from of
On Oct 1 2019, felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com wrote:
I don't think the -unroll-limit is that useful option to expose for the
user. The -inline-limit already controls the amount of inlining. I
couldn't get anything to unroll more than once without having to
increase the inline-limit, which of
> I don't think the -unroll-limit is that useful option to expose for the
> user. The -inline-limit already controls the amount of inlining. I
> couldn't get anything to unroll more than once without having to
> increase the inline-limit, which of course has other implications.
The inline-limit
Hi,
I took a look at this. Four points:
1.
It fixes the runaway inlining. \o/
2.
I don't think the -unroll-limit is that useful option to expose for the
user. The -inline-limit already controls the amount of inlining. I
couldn't get anything to unroll more than once without having to
Hi!
Sorry, one of the previous patches was broken (thanks to megane
for pointing this out). Here is an updated version.
felix
From c7744fae69b314f1eaf68b2b60de3e90d4cad264 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: felix
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 14:59:51 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Revert "Revert half of "Add
