Subject: Re: [boost] [dynamic_bitset] Comparison operators without assertions
From: Gavin Lambert (gavinl_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-05-17 02:07:07
Mere moments ago, quoth I:
> 1. Render it as a bitstring first and then use string comparison. This
> seems needlessly perf-hungry (unless internal storage were already as a
> bitstring, but that seems needlessly storage-hungry). This also biases
> the comparison to the non- end, which might be good or bad depending
> on usage.
Variations include zero-padding whichever one is smaller, or not.
> 2. Compare each 32-bit (or whatever window size is convenient) group
> of bits as an unsigned integer (zero-padding if smaller than the window
> size), starting at whichever one holds  and continuing as long as
> both sets contributed at least one "real" bit to the window; if any
> comparison returns unequal, that's the result; if all comparisons return
> equal, then finally compare the actual sizes of both sets for the final
> result. Advantage: fast. Disadvantage: the ordering might change if
> the window size changes (eg. for different platforms, or future Boost
Another variation is to start from the non- end. This would probably
get you a more "natural" bitstring-like ordering and should be less
dependent on the window size. Might still result in different ordering
on big-endian vs. little-endian platforms, though that depends on how
internal storage is structured vs. indexing.
Comparing the actual sizes at the end if everything else is equal seems
like an important step, though. 0000 > 00.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk