RE: [pooma-dev] RFA: delete_test1 Modifications

[James Crotinger]

Actually, I think "fast code" is one of our prime directives. We should try to find a way to do both.

  Jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeffrey Oldham [mailto:address@hidden]
> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 10:46 AM
> To: James Crotinger
> Cc: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [pooma-dev] RFA: delete_test1 Modifications
>
>
> 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
>