Hello Francois, So I was wrong and it is nice because I tended to avoid local vars declarations :-) But I remember having read somewhere that using/accessing local vars was slower than global ones and this why I said that.
>> WM> Variables on the stack does not consume time. Only if something has to >> WM> be initialized or so, like for example a long string. >> I am not sure that is consume no time. If I remember well, local vars >> are dynamicaly allocated and deallocated each time you go into the >> procedure, so it take a bit (not much) to allocate/deallocate it and >> finally you may produce more memory fragmentation. FP> Defenitely not. Wilfried is perfectly correct. Allocating only one or one FP> hundred local variables takes exactly the same time, just the time to add a FP> constant (computed at compile time) to the stack pointer. It doesn't FP> fragment memory at all since the local variables are allocated on the stack FP> and not on the heap managed by the memory allocator. FP> The only problem with local variable, is that data must be copied elsewhere FP> if it has to persist for some time after the function returns. And that FP> takes a lot of time (I mean copy data) when data is a large buffer. FP> -- FP> [EMAIL PROTECTED] FP> http://www.overbyte.be -- To unsubscribe or change your settings for TWSocket mailing list please goto http://www.elists.org/mailman/listinfo/twsocket Visit our website at http://www.overbyte.be
