commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mikkel Meyer Andersen <>
Subject Re: [math] new pseudo random number generators
Date Tue, 21 Sep 2010 08:40:21 GMT
2010/9/21 Luc Maisonobe <>:
> Le 21/09/2010 10:08, Mikkel Meyer Andersen a écrit :
>> 2010/9/21 Luc Maisonobe <>:
>>> Le 21/09/2010 09:26, Mikkel Meyer Andersen a écrit :
>>>>> Here is an extract from the answer from Pierre L'Ecuyer:
>>>>>  Our code can be released under either a GPL or a commercial license.
>>>> Well, what about the Apache License then?
>>> It is their code and I did not use it. The main point is we
>>> reimplemented it. Of course, relying on their code that is GPLed would
>>> be a clear no-go as GPL is a category X license (see
>>> <>).
>> Exactly. But as I understood, you used some of their optimization
>> principles - but that is not an issue or?
> I finally inlined everything, yes but I doubt it would count as a
> specific optimization found only in this original code. It's a common
> way and especially when the code to be inlined is one or two
> instructions only. The elementary transforms here are very simple
> (things like "v0 ^ (v0 << 25)" or "((z2 & 0x00020000) != 0) ? (z2Prime ^
> 0xb729fcec) : z2Prime"). Inlining this is common sense.
>>> Perhaps I should give a go to still other optimizations just to make
>>> more clear our code is really different ?
>> I'm not sure what you mean?
> Some ways to optimize further could be to process several numbers in raw
> to benefit from some of the values being already in register rather than
> putting them in a memory array to read them back just the next iteration
> (one Well iteration uses 5 values from the bits pool array, two being
> close together and the three other being spread in the array).
> Basically, it would be packing two or more iterations in one call and
> cache the results. Then, when the user asks for 1 million numbers, some
> calls would result in simply retrieving one value from the cache and
> only a few calls would mean cherry picking in the array and performing
> the bits twiddling.
> They do not use this kind of tricks in their implementation. By using
> them in ours, it would make more clear our code is really an original
> one and not derived from their GPL code.
It sounds reasonable, but I'm thinking that it might be better to add
the current code, and then optimise it further afterwards? As I see
it, that would provide some advantages (e.g. testing, performance etc.
for everybody).


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message