FastSortLibrary 1.0.4

Sort faster than Array.Sort().
MiceSort()            : Single-task. A little faster. Most reliable in this library.
BothSidesNowSort()    : Multi-task. Time is less than half on intel i5 note(2 core 4 threads).

1. Usage

var sort = new SortEnvironment<T>() { // T -> element (class or value type)
   Data = {IList<T>},    // Name of T[], List<T> or other class based on IList<T>
   Compare = {Comparison<T>}, // Compare function
//    InverseOrder = true, // true = Descending
//    AlmostSorted = true, // true = Time may be shortened when data is almost sorted. Otherwise, time is late.
//    Partial = 0,        // Partial sort setting. Number larger than 0 = The specified amount of high-order elements are sorted.
   CoreCacheAmount = 256, // Data amount within each core cache. 2^N. You need to set eligible value for your sortings and CPU. 256 is initial value when omitted. (Experimental value in my PC)
// Below are only for 'BothSidesNowSort'
//    TaskAmount = 4, // Parallel task amount. Thread amount of CPU is initial value when omitted.
//    RedZone = true,     // true = Full throttle. Faster but danger. false = Under limiter. More safety.
//    MakeWayFor = false   // true = Idle cores make way for non-sort task. Time becomes slow.
};
sort.BothSidesNowSort(); // Or sort.MiceSort();

Or call Array<T>.Sort() compatible shape below. Replace * to BothSidesNowSort or MiceSort
ArraySort<T>.*(T[]);
ArraySort<T>.*(T[], IComparer<T> or Comparison<T>);
ListSort<T>.*(List<T>);
ListSort<T>.*(List<T>, IComparer<T> or Comparison<T>);

2. Character
Method  : In-place merge sort. Bottom-up approach.
Stable : Yes
Memory : Stack [log2(N/M) * 3 * int size * task amount]. (N is Data length. M is CoreCacheAmount.)
        : Instead of log2(N/M) calculation, 100 is used. [I think it sufficient safety size and present PC don't mind it.]
        : And BothSidesNowSort() multi-core control uses additional array [N/M * int size].
Time    : Comparison: O(NlogN)
        : Move: O(NlogN^2) when N is small, O(NlogN) when N is large. [My persume. Not decision]

3. Notice
- Exclusive use of challengers and human sacrifices to brand new technology
  This is good tool for confirming your PC CPU core/thread true ability.
  I can't assure this library stands up to actual purpose. You must prepare your own risk.
  Reliability : "Mice sort" > "Both sides now sort(RedZone = false)" > "Both sides now sort(RedZone = true)".
- When comparison function is time consuming, it is faster than Array.Sort().
  But when comparison function is subtraction only like common sort benchmark, slower than Array.Sort().
- This function is available to IList<T> interface implemented array structure class. (T[], List<T>)
  It can't sort LinkedList<T> because the class has no link patch function.
  (C# LinkedList<T> originally has no sort function. Array shape or LinQ(not In-place) may be standard in C# sorting.)

4. Algorithm
  Below article includes almost theory I am using but the list includes many bugs.
https://www.codeproject.com/Articles/5275988/Fastest-Sort-Algorithm