Keith Medcalf wrote:
>
> On Monday, 7 October, 2019 14:58, Dominique Pellé <
> dominique.pe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Here the allocated size is fixed (always 64 pointers), so alloca does
> >not seem needed.
>
> >I wonder how many other functions could avoid dynamic allocation
> >like this one
On Monday, 7 October, 2019 14:58, Dominique Pellé
wrote:
>Here the allocated size is fixed (always 64 pointers), so alloca does
>not seem needed.
>I wonder how many other functions could avoid dynamic allocation
>like this one (either with a stack array or alloca).
Probably a lot. I would
Here the allocated size is fixed (always 64 pointers), so alloca does
not seem needed.
I wonder how many other functions could avoid dynamic allocation
like this one (either with a stack array or alloca).
Regards
Dominique
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 10:26 PM Mateusz Wajchęprzełóż
wrote:
>
> What
What about sqlite3StackAllocZero and SQLITE_USE_ALLOCA?
pon., 7 paź 2019 o 20:51 Dominique Pellé
napisał(a):
> Hi
>
> Below is a patch which avoids a dynamic
> allocation in vdbeSorterSort(...), using a local
> stack array instead (faster and smaller code).
> I assume that a local array of 64
Hi
Below is a patch which avoids a dynamic
allocation in vdbeSorterSort(...), using a local
stack array instead (faster and smaller code).
I assume that a local array of 64 pointers is small
enough to be in the stack.
Is this worth merging?
$ fossil diff src/vdbesort.c
Index: src/vdbesort.c
5 matches
Mail list logo