Re: [pooma-dev] RFA: delete_test1 Modifications

[Jeffrey Oldham]

On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 09:33:45AM -0700, James Crotinger wrote:
> The memmove optimization was fairly substantial when I tested it. I think it
> would be better to modify the code to pass addresses to memmove - again this
> gets to the question of whether it is really OK to use &a.begin()[0] to be
> the address of the 0th element, etc.

Yes, I imagine that memmove() is significantly faster than copy(), but
I would prefer to have code that is guaranteed to compile rather than
fast code that compiles only for certain platforms.

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jeffrey Oldham [mailto:address@hidden
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 6:33 PM
> > To: address@hidden
> > Subject: [pooma-dev] RFA: delete_test1 Modifications
> > 
> > 
> > OK to commit?
> > 
> > Compiling src/Utilities/tests/delete_test1.cpp showed that the vector
> > type `Array_t' was declared to store doubles but actually stored
> > integers.  Also, a call to std::memmove() illegally converted vector
> > iterators to pointers.  The alternative call to std::copy() is instead
> > used.
> > 
> > 2001 May 23  Jeffrey D. Oldham  <address@hidden>
> > 
> >     * delete_test1.cpp (Array_t): s/vector<double>/vector<int>/
> >     (delete_shiftup_test2): Remove "optimization" call to memmove.
> > 
> > Tested on   sequential Linux using gcc 3.0 by compiling the program
> > Approved by ???you???

Thanks,
Jeffrey D. Oldham
address@hidden