Paul Schneider wrote: > Guy Harrison wrote: [snip] >> "Dynamic allocation" is still the stock answer. Consider also grabbing >> some older books which cover "batch processing". Most processing is >> boring repetitive stuff. Half the battle with programming is losing >> conventional thought. Sparse arrays are a bonus. Don't program for them >> unless you have reason to. >> > Thanks for your answer. My problem is definitely not even remotely > sparse. It's all dense vector/matrix matrix/matrix stuff.
In that case, without some predictive algorithm, you're looking at random access. > I don't know much about compilers and operating systems. Maybe this is > why it seems so unintuitive to me to throw away the advantage? It's not an advantage. It's a balance. > to know > everything at compile time. In all the experiments I performed, static > allocation itself and working with statically allocated structures was > much faster than the dynamic counterpart. Did you take linker time & runtime startup into that equation? In most situations "static" involves zeroing the space. Dynamic allocation is uninitialised. It's hard to advise further without code. _______________________________________________ Help-gplusplus mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gplusplus
