Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "6.6684".
Did you mean:
6.6683
2010 Feb 07
0
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] FoldingSetNodeID: use MurmurHash2 instead of SuperFastHash
While I've not reviewed the patch in too much detail, it looks
promising. Can you run some end-to-end benchmarks to make sure that
cache pressure in the full program or other variables not accounted
for in a micro-benchmark don't dominate performance? Specifically the
nightly tester includes a number of real programs and machinery to
measure total compile time.
On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 7:09
2010 Feb 07
3
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] FoldingSetNodeID: use MurmurHash2 instead of SuperFastHash
On Sat, Feb 06, 2010 at 04:51:15PM -0800, Chandler Carruth wrote:
> While I've not reviewed the patch in too much detail, it looks
> promising. Can you run some end-to-end benchmarks to make sure that
> cache pressure in the full program or other variables not accounted
> for in a micro-benchmark don't dominate performance? Specifically the
> nightly tester includes a number
2010 Feb 06
4
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] FoldingSetNodeID: use MurmurHash2 instead of SuperFastHash
Some additional info can be found at:
http://murmurhash.googlepages.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MurmurHash
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/recipes/hash_functions.aspx
as well as in the patch description itself. Patch and benchmark attached.
Gregory
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: