Difference: JaysJournal (49 vs. 50)

Line: 1 to 1
	May 2010 archive 06/01/10
Line: 330 to 330
	Find out what's going on with multithreading. Start implementing precalculated blocks.
Added:
> >	07/02/10 Fixed the bug in my rank function, turns out I did miss a +1. So now I have a working rank structure that I can build and query for any length sequence. The current implementation uses two parallel `uint64_t` arrays to store the two (first and second) bitsequences. Before I start an implementation that stores precalculated values though, I want to do a few experiments with one array that holds each block sequentially. I also did a few tests with the new calculation method ( `~second & first) & (0xFFFF...FF >> BITS-i` ). I tried making an array of length `BITS` to store the precalculated masks for every `i`. That way might lead to fewer operations (not really sure on that point). Preliminary tests didn't show much difference, especially on `-O3`. The strange thing is, I actually compiled a minimal rank function using either of the two calculations as assembly, and at `-O3`, there wasn't even any difference in the assembly code! Strange, since the two aren't really numerically equivalent, just "popcount equivalent". To do: Explore sequential vs parallel blocks Add precalculated blocks.