freepooma-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [pooma-dev] RFA: delete_test1 Modifications


From: Jeffrey Oldham
Subject: Re: [pooma-dev] RFA: delete_test1 Modifications
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 18:32:48 -0700
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i

On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 04:17:54PM -0700, James Crotinger wrote:
> copy doesn't have the same semantics as memmove and so it is potentially
> faster (it can only copy overlapping regions if the destination is before
> the source, which is the case in the shift-up copies, which almost always
> involve overlapping regions). However, I did a lot of testing with KCC on
> the SGI and found that for larger moves, memmove was faster. This is why I
> put a test into the delete_shiftup algorithm to use copy only if the length
> of the copy was less than 100 (a good round number). Someone (named julianc)
> has since commented out that code without leaving a comment in the source as
> to the reason. Looking at the log I see that it was due to VC++ not having a
> proper std::advance. This should have just been coded around. At any rate, I
> didn't add this complication lightly. Now perhaps KCC has since written copy
> to use memmove so I don't know if my investigations from early 2000 are
> still valid.
> 
>   Jim
> 
> > For those skipping intermediary emails, the discussion is whether
> > memmove() is faster than copy().
> > 
> > Attached is a program that constructs a vector, copies its contents to
> > another vector, and then checks the copy for correctness.  On
> > Linux/gcc3.0 and Irix6.5/KCC, I cannot find any significant speed
> > difference between std::copy and std::memmove for vectors of doubles.
> > Given this result, may we use std::copy() everywhere since it is
> > guaranteed to compile? 

OK, I am not going to argue with your timing data even though I cannot
reproduce them.  Let's just end up with a program that compiles and
uses std::memmove.

OK to commit this patch?

Compiling src/Utilities/tests/delete_test1.cpp showed that the vector
type `Array_t' was declared to store doubles but actually stored
integers.  Also, arguments for a call to std::memmove() was modified
to permit compilation.

2001 May 24  Jeffrey D. Oldham  <address@hidden>

        * delete_test1.cpp (Array_t): s/vector<double>/vector<int>/
        (delete_shiftup_test2): Modify memmove operands to permit compilation.

Tested on       sequential Linux using gcc 3.0 by compiling the program
Approved by     ???you???

Thanks,
Jeffrey D. Oldham
address@hidden

Attachment: delete_test1.cpp.patch
Description: Text document


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]