comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive: archive » Use of Temporary( ) vs an Optimised Compiler

Home » Public Forums » archive » Use of Temporary( ) vs an Optimised Compiler

Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend

Use of Temporary( ) vs an Optimised Compiler [message #28130]

Mon, 26 November 2001 07:38

Martin Downing
Messages: 136
Registered: September 1998

Senior Member

Here's a thought for the day:
we have all had to get used to using the temporary function to enable memory
efficient code. Some of us less effectively than others!
ie: instead of
a = 2*a + b/a
write
a = 2*a + b/TEMPORARY(a)

Personally although good practice I find it makes code hard to read. Who
agrees that this could and should be dealt with at the compilation stage,
obviously if A is being reassigned then the previous contents are lost so
the compiler could reuse A when processing the last copy of A on the right
hand side. Would that be so hard for RSI to implement?

Martin

----------------------------------------
Martin Downing,
Clinical Research Physicist,
Grampian Orthopaedic RSA Research Centre,
Woodend Hospital, Aberdeen, AB15 6LS.

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]

		Use of Temporary( ) vs an Optimised Compiler By: Martin Downing on Mon, 26 November 2001 07:38
		Re: Use of Temporary( ) vs an Optimised Compiler By: Pavel A. Romashkin on Tue, 27 November 2001 09:24
		Re: Use of Temporary( ) vs an Optimised Compiler By: Paul van Delst on Tue, 27 November 2001 10:46
		Re: Use of Temporary( ) vs an Optimised Compiler By: Martin Downing on Tue, 27 November 2001 02:42
		Re: Use of Temporary( ) vs an Optimised Compiler By: Craig Markwardt on Mon, 26 November 2001 21:42
		Re: Use of Temporary( ) vs an Optimised Compiler By: Liam E. Gumley on Tue, 27 November 2001 11:13

Previous Topic:	Re: removing old IDL versions
Next Topic:	Automatic truncation of trailing dimension.....

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

] [

]

Current Time: Wed Oct 08 13:42:03 PDT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.00374 seconds