On 02.12.2015 13:23, Ron Pressler wrote:
Is there a way to improve the implementation(s) of permute()? A quick
glance at the code showed what may possibly be way too many allocations
(in tuples and record) due to what seems like an overly eager allocation
policy (e.g. arrays are allocated before even a single permuted element
is found). But as all that's required of the permutations is a
fingerprint, perhaps a more substantial optimization may be possible.
those are interesting findings. Can you send me a (stripped down)
spec/model that exemplifies the performance problem?
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "tlaplus" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tlaplus+u...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To post to this group, send email to tla...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tlaplus
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout