On 05/11/2013 12:46 AM, Mike Duigou wrote:
On May 10 2013, at 07:14 , Chris Hegarty wrote:
Updated webrev and specdiff.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/8014076/ver.01/specdiff/java/util/Arrays.html
Docs changes look fine to me.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/8014076/ver.01/webrev
On May 10 2013, at 07:14 , Chris Hegarty wrote:
> Updated webrev and specdiff.
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/8014076/ver.01/specdiff/java/util/Arrays.html
Docs changes look fine to me.
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/8014076/ver.01/webrev/
ArraysParallelSortHelpers::
- It's st
Updated webrev and specdiff.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/8014076/ver.01/specdiff/java/util/Arrays.html
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/8014076/ver.01/webrev/
I incorporated the feedback so far, and reverted the change to make
MIN_ARRAY_SORT_GRAN public ( there doesn't appear to be
I don't understand why this is important. Is the general advise not,
always use parallelSort unless there is a good reason not to?
That certainly would NOT be my general advise. My general advise is only use
parallelism to solve a performance problem. Overuse of FJ for non critical tasks
will
On 9/05/2013 7:47 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 05/09/2013 10:45 AM, David Holmes wrote:
Good point Mike. I guess the same argument could be made for putting
any value in the implementation detail. Any objection to completely
removing any reference to this?
The compile-time constant issue
On 05/09/2013 10:45 AM, David Holmes wrote:
Good point Mike. I guess the same argument could be made for putting
any value in the implementation detail. Any objection to completely
removing any reference to this?
The compile-time constant issue is easily fixed by using an
initialization f
On 9/05/2013 7:26 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 8 May 2013, at 21:56, Mike Duigou wrote:
On May 7 2013, at 10:13 , Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 05/07/2013 05:04 PM, Mike Duigou wrote:
The "currently" MIN_ARRAY_SORT_GRAN statement bothers me. Can we remove
currently?
No problem. That would read.
On 05/08/13 17:26, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 8 May 2013, at 21:56, Mike Duigou wrote:
On May 7 2013, at 10:13 , Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 05/07/2013 05:04 PM, Mike Duigou wrote:
The "currently" MIN_ARRAY_SORT_GRAN statement bothers me. Can we remove
currently?
No problem. That would read.
On 8 May 2013, at 21:56, Mike Duigou wrote:
>
> On May 7 2013, at 10:13 , Chris Hegarty wrote:
>
>> On 05/07/2013 05:04 PM, Mike Duigou wrote:
>>> The "currently" MIN_ARRAY_SORT_GRAN statement bothers me. Can we remove
>>> currently?
>>
>> No problem. That would read...
>>
>> "When the sub
On May 7 2013, at 10:13 , Chris Hegarty wrote:
> On 05/07/2013 05:04 PM, Mike Duigou wrote:
>> The "currently" MIN_ARRAY_SORT_GRAN statement bothers me. Can we remove
>> currently?
>
> No problem. That would read...
>
> "When the sub-array length reaches a {@linlplain #MIN_ARRAY_SORT_GRAN
>
On 05/08/13 04:57, Chris Hegarty wrote:
Doug,
David raises a good question here. Is this implementation detail still correct:
"The algorithm requires a working space equal to the size of the
original array."
All sort methods require working space of at most the size of the array
segment (wh
Doug,
David raises a good question here. Is this implementation detail still
correct:
"The algorithm requires a working space equal to the size of the
original array."
I did get clarifications on a number of the minor spec/implementation
details, but I don't think we discuss this one.
(I
Hi Chris,
Didn't Doug's changes also remove the constraint:
"The algorithm requires a working space equal to the size of the
original array."
?
David
On 8/05/2013 12:51 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
Doug has made some updates to the java.util.Arrays sorting code to
provide stable sorting. There
On 05/07/2013 05:04 PM, Mike Duigou wrote:
The "currently" MIN_ARRAY_SORT_GRAN statement bothers me. Can we remove
currently?
No problem. That would read...
"When the sub-array length reaches a {@linlplain #MIN_ARRAY_SORT_GRAN
minimum granularity}, the sub-array is sorted using the appr
The "currently" MIN_ARRAY_SORT_GRAN statement bothers me. Can we remove
currently? I would expect to see currently if the numerical value of
MIN_ARRAY_SORT_GRAN was presented. We may change the threshold but we're
otherwise committed to the constant name for the threshold.
Mike
On May 7 2013,
Doug has made some updates to the java.util.Arrays sorting code to
provide stable sorting. There have also been some changes to the
original Parallel Array Sorting ( MIN_ARRAY_SORT_GRAN is public again ).
Right now a copy of this work is sitting in the lambda repo. This issue
proposed to integ
16 matches
Mail list logo
