Subject: Re: [boost] [sort] pdqsort mini-review
From: ÐÐ»ÐµÐºÑÐ°Ð½Ð´Ñ ÐÐ°Ð¹ÑÐµÐ² (zamazan4ik_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-06-28 23:38:12
Hello. Try to send my thoughts from another email.
1. Are there any specific concerns you have about pdqsort vs. std::sort?
2. Does it compile for you when you try to use it as a replacement for
3. How does the performance compare on your system vs. std::sort?
4. Do you think we should include pdqsort in Boost.Sort?
5. Do you have any concerns about switching the default/fallback sort in
Boost libraries (including Boost.Sort) from std::sort to pdqsort?
1. Only that pdqsort is really better than std::sort's Introsort
2. Yes, it does.
3. Pdqsort is much faster than std::sort.
4. Yes, i do. I think that pdqsort is really good sort algorithm - it's
really fast and pdqsort is already implemented sort algorithm in Rust's
libcore as sort_unstable.
5. No, i have not.
2017-06-28 16:42 GMT+03:00 Robert via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>:
> On 6/27/2017 6:37 PM, Orson Peters via Boost wrote:
>> I don't believe it's just me that can't view your post Alexander, as the
>> post is empty on the Boost archives as well:
>> It is not only you. All I have is empty content on this thread from
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 1:20 AM, Alexander Zaitsev via Boost <
>> boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/
>> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk