Skip to content

20250209 bounded static var refs#291

Draft
shnarazk wants to merge 5 commits into
dev-0.18.0-20250128from
20250209-bounded-var-refs
Draft

20250209 bounded static var refs#291
shnarazk wants to merge 5 commits into
dev-0.18.0-20250128from
20250209-bounded-var-refs

Conversation

@shnarazk
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

@shnarazk shnarazk commented Feb 9, 2025

cf. #283

I have to re-consider the efficiency by this approach. It should reduce indirect deferences I thought. But in fact, this gets worse results.

  • each literal has one reference to Var and one boolean constraint. So this needs more space. It's not good in terms of reference locality. On the other hand, the current scheme uses an int that encodes VarId and a boolean constraint.
  • There's no or little difference between getting a direct reference to a Var and holding an offset for Vec<Var> at CPU instruction level.

@shnarazk shnarazk self-assigned this Feb 9, 2025
@shnarazk shnarazk changed the title 20250209 bounded var refs 20250209 bounded static var refs Feb 9, 2025
@shnarazk shnarazk mentioned this pull request Feb 10, 2025
9 tasks
@shnarazk shnarazk added wont be merged This will not be merged type system Changes on types for safety or generality labels Mar 12, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

type system Changes on types for safety or generality wont be merged This will not be merged

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant