github.com/moarvm/moarvm | IRC logs at colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_logs/moarvm Set by AlexDaniel on 12 June 2018. |
|||
01:51
frost-lab joined
02:16
lucasb left
07:08
sena_kun joined
07:27
zakharyas joined
|
|||
jnthn | o/ | 09:17 | |
nwc10 | \o | 09:23 | |
nine | Is there a quick hack to make sort_plan a stable sort? | 09:28 | |
lizmat | modules.raku.org/dist/Array::Sorted::Util ? :-) | 09:30 | |
seriously, it would be nice if there would be a finds_s/i/n nqp op | |||
jnthn | nine: If you need a secondary property to sort equal things on, then I think the static frame is in reach, and thus the cuid, although those aren't really globally unique. | 09:32 | |
But I think if bytecode production is stable, they will be too | 09:33 | ||
MasterDuke | where would you use a finds_s/i/n? | ||
jnthn | Probably good enough as a "quick hack" | ||
If not then take some property of the cuid too | 09:34 | ||
*of the CU | |||
lizmat: What would the op do? | |||
lizmat | in the case of native int, would take a native int array and an int value, and tell you where it is in the list if it can be found | 09:35 | |
jnthn | I guess this is the "make the sort stable by never having two things be really equal" appraoch :) | ||
lizmat | no | ||
in the implementation of that finds sub in the module | |||
jnthn | I was talking about what I just suggested to nine++, not about your op suggestion :) | ||
lizmat | ah, ok | 09:36 | |
and if it cannot be found, tell you where it should be inserted | |||
jnthn | Oh, it's assuming the data is sorted? | 09:37 | |
lizmat | the module also allows you to specify associated lists, so you can insert a "key" in one list, and a "value" in the other | ||
jnthn | I'm not sure that's worth an op | ||
I was going to say that a find_i and find_n might be worth it because there are better ways than a loop to scan a bunch of things packed inot memory | |||
*into | 09:38 | ||
lizmat | perhaps not... at the moment an object hash implementation using this module, is still about 5x as slow as the current object hash | ||
jnthn | With _s it's already not going to do much better because a string array has the LoI in the way | ||
(Much better than a loop at the bytecode level, I mean) | 09:39 | ||
lizmat | yeah, I understand | ||
anyways... the 5x slower is for a Str, with a very cheap .WHICH | |||
otoh, if your cmp on the object depends on .WHICH, it's going to be slower still | 09:40 | ||
anyways, I wanted to explore that way of implementing hashes, to see if it would make sense, from performance, or from memory use point of view | 09:41 | ||
but yeah, having a find_i/n op would be nice :-) | 10:13 | ||
10:47
zakharyas left
10:48
zakharyas joined
10:55
zakharyas left
|
|||
MasterDuke | timotimo: the coverage_log op is not defined in nqp. is it used by the debug server, or was that functionality just never fleshed out? | 11:16 | |
timotimo | you can't create one of these yourself, they are put into bytecode by an instrumentation thingie if the MVM_COVERAGE_LOG env var is set | 11:17 | |
MasterDuke | ah, ok | ||
leont | That moment you accidentally write moar instead of more in non-Raku context -_- | 12:22 | |
MasterDuke | our azure CI pipelines currently use ubuntu 18.04. they have ubuntu 20.04 available (and 16.04). would it makes sense to switch our current pipelines to 20.04 and add one or two 18.04 and 16.04 (e.g., one gcc and one clang of each)? | 12:32 | |
12:39
zakharyas joined
|
|||
jnthn | MasterDuke: Sounds reasonable to me | 12:54 | |
MasterDuke | k, will PR that in a bit | 12:55 | |
Geth | MoarVM: MasterDuke17++ created pull request #1475: Update Azure CI linux versions + add old versions |
13:14 | |
14:02
frost-lab left
14:15
Kaiepi left,
Kaiepi joined
14:38
Kaiepi left,
Kaiepi joined
14:43
Kaiepi left
14:44
Kaiepi joined
17:59
zakharyas left,
sena_kun left
18:00
sena_kun joined
19:13
MasterDuke left
19:50
lucasb joined
20:15
MasterDuke joined
20:31
MasterDuke left
20:32
MasterDuke joined
21:05
Ven_de_Thiel joined
21:43
Ven_de_Thiel left
21:54
dogbert11 joined
21:58
dogbert17 left
22:02
dogbert17 joined
22:07
dogbert11 left
22:34
dogbert11 joined
22:37
dogbert17 left
|