Building and peeling a graph should be identical but the assign step is different. I use non-minimal not order preserving BDZ scheme while Joerg's code is based on the original CHM scheme.
Given keys A, B, C and D, CHM always maps them to values 0, 1, 2 and 3. BDZ, on the other hand, can generate values in a range [0, 2.1 * 4) and it doesn't preserve an order. For instance, one possible mapping in the BDZ scheme is 7, 2, 5, 1.
> Many other free software projects, including FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenWrt, are moving in the same direction.
I might be wrong (I'm away from my NetBSD boxes) but build.sh script in NetBSD has a buildseed option which can be used to create identical builds of the base system.
I spent about an hour looking at the tool. They say that only very few instructions aren't supported (and thus ignored by the tool) but a very popular imul instruction can be ignored.
PS I noticed that gcc with -march=corei7-avx generates more cycles compared to a generic amd64 compilation for an unrolled integer(4) to char[4] conversion.
I used some bits from it to help me in building my own log approximation but I didn't have time to dig into it.
I ended up doing Chebyshev approximation over [1, 2) interval but I extended the interval slightly to make sure that an error term at 1.0 is minimal (you can also minimise an error term at 2.0 if you want some smoothness between [1, 2) and [2, 4) intervals).
It's easy to calculate new interval values for Chebyshev approximation and it shouldn't be a problem to modify Remez but I couldn't find any Remez implementation that would let me do what I needed.
Usually, interval ends in Remez algorithm are fixed, while internal points can be moved by the algorithm. I needed a way to to fix one or two internal points (1.0 and optionally 2.0) but let the algorithm move interval ends within certian limits.
If anyone knows of any tool that let me do it, I'd be happy to play with it and publish my code. My approach is a bit similar to [1] but I'd more likely use Intel assembly or DynASM.
PS The author of [1] uses remez from e Sollya tool but it doesn't let me fix internal points. I looked at the implementation but it's more obscure than boost/remez.
UPDATE: it's not clear from the above what my objectives were. I wanted to to produce exact values for integer powers of 2 including log2(1). This approach also gives a small relative error around x=1.
Indeed, it has been discussed many times. But I don't remember any discussion on attribution rights. If GS replaced GPL text with their own header they presumably deleted names of the original authors. I wonder if those authors could (collectively perhaps) send a complaint to GS and ask to restore the attributions?
It depends on how much effort you put in making sure your parser is robust. I ran AFL tests for several days trying to find bugs in Lua parser but AFL kept discovering a way to load a binary chunk. After that, it didn't take to crash on a malformed binary chunk.
Priv separation is a good idea even if you trust your parser.
Why [0, 1] interval is so popular in random number generators? It's one of the worst intervals possible imo because it includes subnormal numbers. The interval [1, 2] is much nicer. Some implementations generate random numbers in [1, 2] and subtract 1.0: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.lua.luajit/3051
Hi Luke,
Take a look at bpfjit in NetBSD. It uses bsd licensed sljit library to generate code for multiple platforms. The library has some slight overhead over hand-written assembly but it gives you a single codebase for all platforms. At the very least, you can borrow some optimisations from my code.
http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/sys/net/bpfjit.c?onl...
PS I can't work on sponsored projects.
Alex