On Mon, 5 Apr 2021 at 13:07, Fabien COELHO <coe...@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote: > > Attached a v28 which I hope fixes the many above issues and stays with > ints. The randu64 is still some kind of a joke, I artificially reduced the > cost by calling jrand48 once and extending it to 64 bits, so it could give > an idea of the cost endured if a 64-bit prng was used. > > Now you are the committer, you can do as you please, I'm just stating my > (mathematical) opinions about using floating point computations for that. > I think that apart from this point of principle/philosophy the permute > performance and implementation are reasonable, and better than my initial > version because it avoids int128 computations and the large prime number > business. >
Pushed. I decided not to go with the "joke" randu64() function, but instead used getrand() directly. This at least removes any *direct* use of doubles in permute() (though of course they're still used indirectly), and means that if getrand() is improved in the future, permute() will benefit too. Regards, Dean
