Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cdt-dev] Bug ID 403404

I think you need to look at the implementation of BigInteger before claiming it's not a performance problem. At the very least, it's really big.

It's easy to imagine a much more performant and small implementation if you know how many bits you're trying to handle. For example, with 128-bits, you can use double word algorithms are as old as I am and maximize performance.

Doug.

From: <Oberhuber>, Martin <Martin.Oberhuber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: "CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, 5 April, 2013 8:51 AM
To: David Wang <kuoweiwang@xxxxxxxxx>, "CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Sergey Prigogin <eclipse.sprigogin@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Bug ID 403404

StackOverflow recommends BigInteger and doesn’t talk about inefficiency.

 

Starting with BigInteger now, it should be fairly straightforward to refactor into a different class with the same API later (ie simple search & replace on the name BigInteger and the import statements for its package). That is, only if performance measurement shows that it’s in fact a problem.

 

Or are you concerned that the API of BigInteger is already inefficient ? – Are you concerned about memory size or performance ?

 

Thanks,

Martin

--

Martin Oberhuber, SMTS / Product Architect – Development Tools, Wind River

direct +43.662.457915.85  fax +43.662.457915.6

 

From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David Wang
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 1:39 AM
To: Sergey Prigogin
Cc: CDT General developers list.
Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Bug ID 403404

 

I would hope we can simply use the BigInteger for now even though its inefficient. But at least this stuff would

work. At the same time we can look into a more solid solution.

 

Thanks

 

From: Sergey Prigogin <eclipse.sprigogin@xxxxxxxxx>
To: David Wang <kuoweiwang@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: CDT General developers list. <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 4:18 PM
Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Bug ID 403404

 

Good opportunity for somebody to contribute one.

 

-sergey

 

On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 4:15 PM, David Wang <kuoweiwang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Not that I am aware of.

 

From: Sergey Prigogin <eclipse.sprigogin@xxxxxxxxx>
To: David Wang <kuoweiwang@xxxxxxxxx>

Cc: CDT General developers list. <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 4:12 PM


Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Bug ID 403404

 

Oh, I see. I didn't notice the bug number in the subject. Do you know of an open source Java implementation of 128-bit integers with EPL-compatible license? I'd like to avoid BigInteger since it's too heavy and inefficient.

 

-sergey

 

On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 4:02 PM, David Wang <kuoweiwang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Thanks. I already filed a bug and the ID on the subject. Do you want me to create another one?

 

I wonder what is the outlook for the bug, my code needs this thing to work.

 

Thanks again

 

From: Sergey Prigogin <eclipse.sprigogin@xxxxxxxxx>
To: David Wang <kuoweiwang@xxxxxxxxx>; CDT General developers list. <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 3:52 PM
Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Bug ID 403404

 

This is most likely caused by the fact that ULONG_MAX cannot be represented by a Java long. Could you please file a bug.

 

-sergey

 

On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 3:42 PM, David Wang <kuoweiwang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi

 

I discussed some potential eclipse indexing error at

 

 

It seems to be a bug in eclipse. I created a bug last month. Can someone please help and confirm

if this is an eclipse bug? and/or will it be fixed shortly?

Thanks a lot, my code heavily relies on this to be working correctly...

David

 


_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev

 

 

 

 

 

 


Back to the top