> [X] Go on with JDK 1.5
> [ ] Go on with JDK 1.4
> [ ] Stick with JDK 1.3 for the following reason:
- Jörg
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That would be -1, on the bits in the RC. I will change to +1 if we
can get the site build working on Unix or bundle the docs with the
binary release. It looks like the necessary fix has been applied to
fix the site build in trunk, so all that is needed is to roll a final
RC.
Phil
On Sat, May 24
On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 8:27 AM, Luc Maisonobe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Someone complained recently to me about poor performances of
> RealMatrix.multiply(). A quick check showed me that changing the indices
> checks in RealMatrix.getEntry() tremendously improved the performances
> (
On 25/05/2008, Siegfried Goeschl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Sebastian,
>
> any news regarding VMS testing - I would like to cut a release but I'm not
> sure if it is completely broken or we just have issues running a few
> regression tests ...
>
There seems to be a problem with the behaviour
On Sun, 2008-05-25 at 17:27 +0200, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Someone complained recently to me about poor performances of
> RealMatrix.multiply(). A quick check showed me that changing the indices
> checks in RealMatrix.getEntry() tremendously improved the performances
> (about a 3 to 1 r
Hi Sebastian,
any news regarding VMS testing - I would like to cut a release but I'm
not sure if it is completely broken or we just have issues running a few
regression tests ...
Cheers,
Siegfried Goeschl
sebb wrote:
2008/4/21 Siegfried Goeschl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Hi Sebastian,
unde
Hello,
Someone complained recently to me about poor performances of
RealMatrix.multiply(). A quick check showed me that changing the indices
checks in RealMatrix.getEntry() tremendously improved the performances
(about a 3 to 1 ratio in a simple case).
The current implementation explicitely calls
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+if (sign> 0) {
+// check if either value is close to a zero
I consider this a dangerous move, because this may indicate even
for a strictly positive (or negative) function that it has a
zero.
Note that the situation is different once we get into so
