<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Accelerating XOR-based Erasure Coding using Program Optimization Techniques · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2108.02692/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2108.02692/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Accelerating XOR-based Erasure Coding using Program Optimization Techniques — mentioned by foota</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38496049</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2108.02692:38496049</guid><pubDate>Sat, 02 Dec 2023 05:03:04 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;I realize they&amp;#x27;re different, but it seems like there are some similarities. In both, you have some chain of operations you need to do, and you want to minimize their cost and optimize for cache benefits etc., This is a pretty good overview paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2108.02692.pdf (they claim to be better than the rest -- I haven&amp;#x27;t evaluated their claims in practice yet) The techniques are mostly about ordering and common subexpression elimination for XOR operations and choosing &amp;quot;better&amp;quot; matrices to do the computation with. CRS codes can be used with many different matrices, but it turns…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2108.02692/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.PL</category></item></channel></rss>
