11-19-2007 09:42 AM - edited 11-19-2007 09:44 AM
11-19-2007 09:58 AM
But you have to admit that it would scale very well on a massively multiCPU system. 😮
I am impressed how many times it goes to dynamic data and back for no reason at all. Even that last flipflop from dynamic-to array-to wavefirm. What would VI analyzer say?
BTW:
CC, your solution could be made a little bit more compact by eliminating the "array size+Initialize array" construct on top. Just use a plain multiply (multiply the array by zero). 😉
11-19-2007 10:03 AM
Nice ! I forgot this trick. I think I have lost part of my mind trying to understand what was going on in that mess... :D:D:D
altenbach a écrit: ... CC, your solution could be made a little bit more compact by eliminating the "array size+Initialize array" construct on top. Just use a plain multiply (multiply the array by zero). 😉
11-19-2007 10:09 AM
Notice that I said "more compact". It might be a tiny little bit slower, but I have not done any systematic comparison. 😉
You can even eliminate the diagram constant by subtracting the array from itself but that would start to get into the range of obfuscated code.. 😮
11-19-2007 02:26 PM
chilly charly wrote:Nice ! I forgot this trick. I think I have lost part of my mind trying to understand what was going on in that mess... :D:D:D
11-20-2007 01:10 AM
11-20-2007 07:07 AM
Must have gone to the same coding school as whoever coded the stuff I was fixing a year ago.. 😄
I still have sight problems since then. When asked to fix the next code.... well... let's just say other things came up LOL!!!! 😄
11-20-2007 09:25 AM
11-21-2007 03:34 PM - edited 11-21-2007 03:36 PM
12-12-2007 03:12 AM - edited 12-12-2007 03:13 AM