You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In the Feature Comparison table, there is a warning sign for DoubleFloats on dynamic memory allocation. Could you please elaborate a little bit? Are you referring to the conversion from a Double64 to a (Float64, Float64) pair? Does this explain why MultiFloats is faster than DoubleFloats (assuming both use the same number of operations)?
BTW, thanks for making such a performant library with precise code!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hey @roosephu, thanks for your interest in MultiFloats.jl! I actually removed that warning sign a while ago, but I wanted to write a brief note on its history to close this thread. At one point in the past, I observed some instances where DoubleFloats.jl would allocate in situations where it didn't need to, so I added the warning sign. However, I lost the old version of the benchmark script where I observed this, and I haven't been able to recreate it since. Either this was fixed at some point in DoubleFloats.jl, or my recollection may simply have been mistaken.
In either case, I can no longer substantiate the claim that DoubleFloats.jl makes unnecessary allocations, so I have changed its grade to a check mark.
In the Feature Comparison table, there is a warning sign for DoubleFloats on dynamic memory allocation. Could you please elaborate a little bit? Are you referring to the conversion from a Double64 to a (Float64, Float64) pair? Does this explain why MultiFloats is faster than DoubleFloats (assuming both use the same number of operations)?
BTW, thanks for making such a performant library with precise code!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: