Skip to content

refactor: optimize number/int32/base/muldw implementation for better performance#11699

Open
impawstarlight wants to merge 2 commits intostdlib-js:developfrom
impawstarlight:refactor/optimize-imuldw
Open

refactor: optimize number/int32/base/muldw implementation for better performance#11699
impawstarlight wants to merge 2 commits intostdlib-js:developfrom
impawstarlight:refactor/optimize-imuldw

Conversation

@impawstarlight
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Resolves none.

Description

What is the purpose of this pull request?

This pull request:

  • Optimizes number/int32/base/muldw implementation to improve performance by moving the isnan check out of the lower level implementation.
  • Utilizes number/int32/base/mul for computing the lower half of the double word product to reduce unnecessary calculation.
  • Remove NaN tests for the lower level implementation.

Related Issues

Does this pull request have any related issues?

No.

Questions

Any questions for reviewers of this pull request?

No.

Other

Any other information relevant to this pull request? This may include screenshots, references, and/or implementation notes.

No.

Checklist

Please ensure the following tasks are completed before submitting this pull request.

AI Assistance

When authoring the changes proposed in this PR, did you use any kind of AI assistance?

  • Yes
  • No

If you answered "yes" above, how did you use AI assistance?

  • Code generation (e.g., when writing an implementation or fixing a bug)
  • Test/benchmark generation
  • Documentation (including examples)
  • Research and understanding

Disclosure

If you answered "yes" to using AI assistance, please provide a short disclosure indicating how you used AI assistance. This helps reviewers determine how much scrutiny to apply when reviewing your contribution. Example disclosures: "This PR was written primarily by Claude Code." or "I consulted ChatGPT to understand the codebase, but the proposed changes were fully authored manually by myself.".

{{TODO: add disclosure if applicable}}


@stdlib-js/reviewers

…`imul`

---
type: pre_commit_static_analysis_report
description: Results of running static analysis checks when committing changes.
report:
  - task: lint_filenames
    status: passed
  - task: lint_editorconfig
    status: passed
  - task: lint_markdown
    status: na
  - task: lint_package_json
    status: na
  - task: lint_repl_help
    status: na
  - task: lint_javascript_src
    status: na
  - task: lint_javascript_cli
    status: na
  - task: lint_javascript_examples
    status: na
  - task: lint_javascript_tests
    status: na
  - task: lint_javascript_benchmarks
    status: na
  - task: lint_python
    status: na
  - task: lint_r
    status: na
  - task: lint_c_src
    status: na
  - task: lint_c_examples
    status: na
  - task: lint_c_benchmarks
    status: na
  - task: lint_c_tests_fixtures
    status: na
  - task: lint_shell
    status: na
  - task: lint_typescript_declarations
    status: passed
  - task: lint_typescript_tests
    status: na
  - task: lint_license_headers
    status: passed
---
@impawstarlight impawstarlight requested a review from a team April 21, 2026 14:46
@stdlib-bot stdlib-bot added the Needs Review A pull request which needs code review. label Apr 21, 2026
@impawstarlight
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

/stdlib update-copyright-years

@stdlib-bot stdlib-bot added the bot: In Progress Pull request is currently awaiting automation. label Apr 21, 2026
@stdlib-bot
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

/stdlib update-copyright-years

@impawstarlight, the slash command failed to complete. Please check the workflow logs for details.

View workflow run

@stdlib-bot stdlib-bot removed the bot: In Progress Pull request is currently awaiting automation. label Apr 21, 2026
@stdlib-bot
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Coverage Report

Package Statements Branches Functions Lines
number/int32/base/muldw $\color{green}184/184$
$\color{green}+100.00%$
$\color{green}8/8$
$\color{green}+100.00%$
$\color{green}2/2$
$\color{green}+100.00%$
$\color{green}184/184$
$\color{green}+100.00%$

The above coverage report was generated for the changes in this PR.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Needs Review A pull request which needs code review.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants