×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR COMPUTER PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you a
Computer / IT professional?
Join Tek-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Tek-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

local pointers with an EXPLICIT lower bound

local pointers with an EXPLICIT lower bound

local pointers with an EXPLICIT lower bound

(OP)
I have tried to test my code and confronted with st strange:
making local pointers with an EXPLICIT lower bound seems to generate faster code.
Is this right? In case it is, why?

RE: local pointers with an EXPLICIT lower bound

Have you looked at the code generation?

RE: local pointers with an EXPLICIT lower bound

(OP)
Sorry, could you explain what do you mean by code generation and how I can look at that?

RE: local pointers with an EXPLICIT lower bound

Depends on the compiler - some compilers will generate an assembler listing if requested to do so. You can then compare the ones with and without the lower bound.

Alternatively, in the debugger, set a breakpoint where the code is accessing an array index and have a look at the disassembly.

At a guess, if you specify a lower bound of 0, it will be faster (since it is easier to compute arrays from a 0 index). If it is any other lower bound, the speed will be the same.

RE: local pointers with an EXPLICIT lower bound

Just to clarify - say there are 3 arrays

integer a(-5:5), b(0:10), c(11)

And there are 3 computations

a(2) = 10
b(2) = 10
c(2) = 10

To compute the index

addr(a(2)) = addr(a) + (2 - (-5)) * size(integer)
addr(b(2)) = addr(b) + (2 - (0)) * size(integer) optimized to b + 2 * size(integer)
addr(c(2)) = addr(c) + (2 - (1)) * size(integer)

The computation of b has one instruction less so in theory, it will be faster.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Tek-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Tek-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Tek-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Tek-Tips and talk with other members!

Close Box

Join Tek-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical computer professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Tek-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close