On Tuesday, 19 July 2016 at 16:13:21 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
On Tuesday, 19 July 2016 at 16:01:01 UTC, Lodovico Giaretta
wrote:
On Tuesday, 19 July 2016 at 15:48:26 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
Small string optimization should _help_ std::string, no?
Atila
Small string optimization will make the
On 07/19/2016 12:00 PM, Ali Çehreli wrote:
> On 07/19/2016 10:41 AM, deadalnix wrote:
>> if(i < other.i) return -1;
>> if(i > other.i) return 1;
>>
>> Should be
>>
>> (i > other.i) - (i < other.i)
>>
>> Surprisingly, LLVM was unable to optimize one into the other in my
tests.
If you mean the
On 07/19/2016 10:41 AM, deadalnix wrote:
On Tuesday, 19 July 2016 at 10:07:11 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
On Tuesday, 19 July 2016 at 02:54:37 UTC, Saurabh Das wrote:
Posted on Atila's blog yesterday:
https://atilanevesoncode.wordpress.com/2016/07/18/c-is-not-magically-fast-part-2/
So, about
On Tuesday, 19 July 2016 at 10:07:11 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
On Tuesday, 19 July 2016 at 02:54:37 UTC, Saurabh Das wrote:
Posted on Atila's blog yesterday:
https://atilanevesoncode.wordpress.com/2016/07/18/c-is-not-magically-fast-part-2/
So, about D vs C++ there... last night for reasons I
On 7/19/16 11:48 AM, Atila Neves wrote:
On Tuesday, 19 July 2016 at 15:28:45 UTC, Johan Engelen wrote:
On Tuesday, 19 July 2016 at 10:07:11 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
[...]
Very interested to hear why one is faster than the other.
[...]
The strings seem a little short, e.g. "foo1234foo" if
On Tuesday, 19 July 2016 at 16:01:01 UTC, Lodovico Giaretta wrote:
On Tuesday, 19 July 2016 at 15:48:26 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
Small string optimization should _help_ std::string, no?
Atila
Small string optimization will make the struct bigger, thus
making swapping slower. If the struct is
On Tuesday, 19 July 2016 at 15:48:26 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
Small string optimization should _help_ std::string, no?
Atila
Small string optimization will make the struct bigger, thus
making swapping slower. If the struct is no bigger than 2
pointers, swapping it is ultra fast.
On Tuesday, 19 July 2016 at 15:28:45 UTC, Johan Engelen wrote:
On Tuesday, 19 July 2016 at 10:07:11 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
[...]
Very interested to hear why one is faster than the other.
[...]
The strings seem a little short, e.g. "foo1234foo" if I
understand correctly.
Could there be a
On Tuesday, 19 July 2016 at 14:39:54 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
Am 19.07.2016 um 12:07 schrieb Atila Neves:
On Tuesday, 19 July 2016 at 02:54:37 UTC, Saurabh Das wrote:
Posted on Atila's blog yesterday:
https://atilanevesoncode.wordpress.com/2016/07/18/c-is-not-magically-fast-part-2/
So,
On Tuesday, 19 July 2016 at 10:39:26 UTC, Jakob Bornecrantz wrote:
On Tuesday, 19 July 2016 at 10:07:11 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
On Tuesday, 19 July 2016 at 02:54:37 UTC, Saurabh Das wrote:
Posted on Atila's blog yesterday:
On 07/18/2016 10:54 PM, Saurabh Das wrote:
Posted on Atila's blog yesterday:
https://atilanevesoncode.wordpress.com/2016/07/18/c-is-not-magically-fast-part-2/
https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/4tlqyc/c_is_not_magically_fast_twopart_article/
Andrei
On Tuesday, 19 July 2016 at 10:07:11 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
On Tuesday, 19 July 2016 at 02:54:37 UTC, Saurabh Das wrote:
Posted on Atila's blog yesterday:
https://atilanevesoncode.wordpress.com/2016/07/18/c-is-not-magically-fast-part-2/
So, about D vs C++ there... last night for reasons I
On Tuesday, 19 July 2016 at 15:05:30 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
On Tuesday, 19 July 2016 at 14:39:54 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
One thing that the D version does and the others don't is
comparing UTF code points instead of bytes.
Are you sure? Autodecoding is a phobos feature, but here
druntime is
On Tuesday, 19 July 2016 at 14:39:54 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
One thing that the D version does and the others don't is
comparing UTF code points instead of bytes.
Are you sure? Autodecoding is a phobos feature, but here druntime
is used for string comparison, and it usually doesn't provide
Am 19.07.2016 um 12:07 schrieb Atila Neves:
On Tuesday, 19 July 2016 at 02:54:37 UTC, Saurabh Das wrote:
Posted on Atila's blog yesterday:
https://atilanevesoncode.wordpress.com/2016/07/18/c-is-not-magically-fast-part-2/
So, about D vs C++ there... last night for reasons I forget I tried
On Tuesday, 19 July 2016 at 10:07:11 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
On Tuesday, 19 July 2016 at 02:54:37 UTC, Saurabh Das wrote:
Posted on Atila's blog yesterday:
https://atilanevesoncode.wordpress.com/2016/07/18/c-is-not-magically-fast-part-2/
So, about D vs C++ there... last night for reasons I
On Tuesday, 19 July 2016 at 03:03:38 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Tuesday, 19 July 2016 at 02:54:37 UTC, Saurabh Das wrote:
Posted on Atila's blog yesterday:
https://atilanevesoncode.wordpress.com/2016/07/18/c-is-not-magically-fast-part-2/
Where is the part one ?
On Tuesday, 19 July 2016 at 10:07:11 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
On Tuesday, 19 July 2016 at 02:54:37 UTC, Saurabh Das wrote:
Posted on Atila's blog yesterday:
https://atilanevesoncode.wordpress.com/2016/07/18/c-is-not-magically-fast-part-2/
So, about D vs C++ there... last night for reasons I
On Tuesday, 19 July 2016 at 02:54:37 UTC, Saurabh Das wrote:
Posted on Atila's blog yesterday:
https://atilanevesoncode.wordpress.com/2016/07/18/c-is-not-magically-fast-part-2/
So, about D vs C++ there... last night for reasons I forget I
tried replacing std::string with const char* in the
On Tuesday, 19 July 2016 at 03:03:38 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Tuesday, 19 July 2016 at 02:54:37 UTC, Saurabh Das wrote:
Posted on Atila's blog yesterday:
https://atilanevesoncode.wordpress.com/2016/07/18/c-is-not-magically-fast-part-2/
Where is the part one ?
On Tuesday, 19 July 2016 at 02:54:37 UTC, Saurabh Das wrote:
Posted on Atila's blog yesterday:
https://atilanevesoncode.wordpress.com/2016/07/18/c-is-not-magically-fast-part-2/
Where is the part one ?
Posted on Atila's blog yesterday:
https://atilanevesoncode.wordpress.com/2016/07/18/c-is-not-magically-fast-part-2/
22 matches
Mail list logo
