On 03/01/2012 04:51 PM, Andy Ray Terrel wrote:
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 2:22 AM, Marco Morandini<morand...@aero.polimi.it>wrote:
There are some occurrences of
container.size() == 0
scattered throughout the code
(and fewer of container.size() != 0) .
Many of them are harmless, i.e. whenever container
is a vector. Some of them, however,
are for maps of sets (e.g. dolfin/adaptivity/**Extrapolation.cpp:149 ),
leading to completely unnecessary O(N) operations (racall that size() is
O(N) for a map or a list).
While true for a list, it is not a problem for maps or sets:
http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/stl/map/size/
http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/stl/set/size/
I stand corrected
While a silly implementation of a list will be O(n) most good
implementations keep its size around.
but please be aware that the "silly implementation" we are talking about
is gcc's one:
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/containers.html#sequences.list.size
Marco
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin
Post to : dolfin@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
