Robert Ramey wrote:
Is there any reason why it was done this way? For threading issues?
LOL, it is done that way because
a) that was the first way it occurred to me to do it b) it worked c) it didn't occur to me when I wrote it that there might be a performance issue
Of course, now that you mention it ...
My first inclination would be to use
const unsigned char lookup_table[] = { ...
Though I'm not sure that every compiler will exploit the const-ness to avoid re-initalizing lookup_table[] every time.
What about: static const unsigned char lookup_table[] = { ... }; The static tells the compiler that this is a global constant and not just related to this call of the function. The const tells the compiler that the data isn't (shouldn't be) modified. I think this will work on all compilers. (Compare this with declaring class-based constants using "static const ..."). - Reece