On 2014-02-18 1:13 PM, "Casper Færgemand" <shortt...@hotmail.com>" wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 February 2014 at 08:11:04 UTC, Dicebot wrote: I tested some prime sieves both in C++ and D. They worked fastest with dynamic arrays with a size matching the L1 cache. I presume the instructions are located elsewhere in the CPU.
Does that mean ubyte[] = new ubyte[4092] is more likely to end up in the CPU cache than ubyte[4092] or the inverse ?
