On 6/25/11, Larry Evans <cppljevans@suddenlink.net> wrote:
On 06/24/11 20:29, Brian Smith wrote:
If you're program uses a relatively large number of static arrays all in scope at the same time or if a few relatively large static arrays are in scope the stack checker crashes the program when its run, the heap allocated arrays can be present in greater numbers or used when relatively large arrays are required.
If stack space is limited, then why not just allocate the static array on the heap with something like:
typedef int elem_t ; typedef bounds3<2,3,4> bounds_t ; typedef array < elem_t , bounds_t , true , null::allocator >::type array_static_t ; array_static_t* p_static=new array_static_t;
? You would then have only 1 call to any allocator instead of 3 and save space on the heap besides.
You're correct. Now for the excuses part. The problem materialised early in the development when I was working on a pretty old computer and to be honest I never thought of setting up the problem the way you've suggested. The computer I have now, although still not too great, could handle the problem without resorting to the above. Initially the static and dynamic arrays were separate and it was not too far in the distant past that I combined them using the base classes. All things considered that might have been a mistake, although the main reason for doing so was, and still is, the fact that the memory allocations are not the determining factor where performance is concerned, albeit it has an effect. And besides it gives you more options. Thank's Larry. Regards Brian
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
-- www.maidsafe.net