+1
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 2:52 PM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 15, 2018, at 2:24 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
>
> Still looks correct, but I might keep looking for something more elegant.
> What bothers me a little now is
>
> 1290 long word = words[u] & (WORD_MASK <<
> On Jun 15, 2018, at 2:24 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
>
> Still looks correct, but I might keep looking for something more elegant.
> What bothers me a little now is
>
> 1290 long word = words[u] & (WORD_MASK << i);
>
> which is part of the initial setup and is not n
Still looks correct, but I might keep looking for something more elegant.
What bothers me a little now is
1290 long word = words[u] & (WORD_MASK << i);
which is part of the initial setup and is not necessary on each iteration.
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 1:13 PM, Paul Sando
Thanks! Doh, obvious in hindsight.
> On Jun 15, 2018, at 11:05 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
>
> It took me a while to realize why you were checking tz < 63. It's because
> the shift by 64 that might occur below would be a no-op!
Right!
> 1301 action.accept(i++);
> 1
It took me a while to realize why you were checking tz < 63. It's because
the shift by 64 that might occur below would be a no-op!
1301 action.accept(i++);1302
word &= (WORD_MASK << i);
Can we rewrite to simply flip the one bit via
word &= ~(1L << i);
a
Hi Martin,
Thanks for reviewing.
> On Jun 15, 2018, at 7:57 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
>
> Code looks correct to me, but as usual there are some things I would try to
> do differently,
>
Indeed, i tried a few different approaches before settling on this code shape.
> 1292
Code looks correct to me, but as usual there are some things I would try to
do differently,
1292 while (word != 0 && tz < 63) {
I'd try to make this loop simply
while (word != 0)
---
Probably neither of us is fond of the bug magnet special case for
Integer.MAX_VALUE. M
