4 ms·
It's 70% better than O(1). The algorithms it found are for sort3, sort4, and sort5, which were poorly optimized in LLVM's libc++.
by ummonk 3y ago
It's 70% better than O(1). The algorithms it found are for sort3, sort4, and sort5, which were poorly optimized in LLVM's libc++.
- pclmulqdq 3y agoIt may have also laundered those from open-source code that wanted to optimize sort3, sort4, and sort5.