At Sat, 7 Nov 2020 16:42:43 +0100, Dominik Pantůček wrote:
> My current understanding is that the best performance you get from
> unsafe operations while using safe operations as hints for the flonum
> unboxing algorithm, right?
I'm not sure I understand what you mean, but I don't think unsafe
Wow, you are faster than I :)
On 07. 11. 20 15:36, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> At Fri, 6 Nov 2020 12:45:46 -0700, Matthew Flatt wrote:
>> I will investigate faster option. A primitive without conversion could
>> make the safe `flvector-set!` slightly faster, too, by avoiding a
>> redundant check.
>
>
At Fri, 6 Nov 2020 12:45:46 -0700, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> I will investigate faster option. A primitive without conversion could
> make the safe `flvector-set!` slightly faster, too, by avoiding a
> redundant check.
Long story short, I added flvectors to the Chez Scheme level as of
v7.9.0.4. With
At Fri, 6 Nov 2020 20:14:51 +0100, Dominik Pantůček wrote:
> I assume that CS' unsafe-flvector-set! is actually pretty safe when it
> comes to flonum-convertible numbers. It might be a bit faster because it
> lacks the contract, but definitely it is not a "low level" variant.
Hm, right --- it's
Hello Racketeers,
going through some more possible optimizations of my side projects, I
encountered a different behavior of unsafe-flvector-set! between BC and
CS implementations:
CUT HERE
#lang racket
(require racket/unsafe/ops
racket/flonum)
(define flv (make-flvector 10))
5 matches
Mail list logo
