On Thu, 03 Oct 2019 06:55:50 -0400, Ruben Safir said:
> I wouldn't call that C code basic. Regardless, showing an example of a
> driver that doesn't need math, and it might if you understood the high
> level math, and your not aware of it, but predictive branching would
> need it.
See the kernel code that maintains statistical data on likely()/unlikely()
under CONFIG_PROFILE_ANNOTATED_BRANCHES. Seems like "this likely() actually
only triggers 3% of the time" isn't exactly higher math.
There may be some magic going on in the chip hardware - but that's in the
*hardware* and inaccessible to the programmer. I'll also point out that
speculative execution has *other* problems.....
> You can not calculate simple interest efficiently without calculus.
Simple interest is *easy*. Amount * percent. Done. It's compound interest
that only sort of needs calculus (and there only to understand the limiting
case) - and even there I doubt any banks actually use calculus, just apply the
iterative approach.
// yearly interest compounded monthly
for (i=0;i<num_months;i++) { balance += (balance * percent) /12;}
I'd like to see you do it more efficiently using calculus. Especially if you
have to take into account rounding to the nearest penny 36 times for a 3
year loan. That stuff is why COBOL is still around. :)
> calculus. This repeadely ends up being an issue of "if I don't know it,
> I don't need it", which is wrong. More math helps you every time. Math
Somehow I doubt that the Taniyama-Shimura-Weil conjecture is ever
going to have any relevance inside the kernel.
> is advanced logic. I can't tell you how many times I see folks brute
> force their way to solutions that they should be using integration.
Can you show an example of where the kernel needs to be using integration?
Attachment:
pgpka3gnprBzF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
