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 packing, I chose a bitfield ordering more or less on a hunch, but I don't think our current ordering works very well because our modular_bitfield crate uses an endianness that's different from what I expected.
I think a better ordering or approach here could potentially decrease the size of the FST. My guess is that we might save up to 10% on size, which means more of the FST can be kept in the processor cache.
A good PR here should quantify the size decrease when using a different bitfield ordering.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
In
packing
, I chose a bitfield ordering more or less on a hunch, but I don't think our current ordering works very well because ourmodular_bitfield
crate uses an endianness that's different from what I expected.I think a better ordering or approach here could potentially decrease the size of the FST. My guess is that we might save up to 10% on size, which means more of the FST can be kept in the processor cache.
A good PR here should quantify the size decrease when using a different bitfield ordering.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: