Hello.
I'm wondering why in D if you declare a fixed multi dimensional array, you
have to reverse the index order to access an element. I know it has something
to do with how tightly [] bind, but the consequence is that it seems so
different to other languages, it makes it error prone. So
dcoder gtdeg...@yahoo.com wrote:
I'm wondering why in D if you declare a fixed multi dimensional array,
you
have to reverse the index order to access an element. I know it has
something
to do with how tightly [] bind, but the consequence is that it seems so
different to other languages, it
Hello.
Probably a stupid question, but does the dmd v2 compiler work with Windows 7,
and the new intel chips like the i7?
Since the download page on digitalmars references i386 and Win32, I'm assuming
it doesn't?
I'm thinking about getting a new computer, but would like D to work on it.
Hello dcoder,
Hello.
I'm wondering why in D if you declare a fixed multi dimensional array,
you have to reverse the index order to access an element.
When declaring an array, the base type is getting wrapped. When using an
array, the base types get unwrapped.
Because both forms place the
Philippe Sigaud philippe.sig...@gmail.com wrote:
- Why is a 2 threads version repeatedly thrice as fast as a no thread
version?
I thought it'd be only twice as fast.
No idea.
- 1024 threads are OK, but I cannot reach 2048. Why? What is the limit
for the
number of spawn I can do? Would
On 11/07/2010 15:28, Philippe Sigaud wrote:
- Why is a 2 threads version repeatedly thrice as fast as a no thread version?
I thought it'd be only twice as fast.
Well if you are running on windows, my guess is that your 2nd cpu is
completely free of tasks, so the thread running on that one is
Hello div0,
The rule of thumb is don't bother spawning more threads than you have
cpus. You're just wasting resources mostly.
You REALLY don't want more threads trying to run than you have cores. Threads
in a wait state, are less of an issue, but they still use up resources.
--
... IXOYE
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 20:00, div0 d...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
On 11/07/2010 15:28, Philippe Sigaud wrote:
- Why is a 2 threads version repeatedly thrice as fast as a no thread
version?
I thought it'd be only twice as fast.
Well if you are running on windows, my guess is that your
On 11/07/2010 20:00, BCS wrote:
Hello div0,
The rule of thumb is don't bother spawning more threads than you have
cpus. You're just wasting resources mostly.
You REALLY don't want more threads trying to run than you have cores.
Threads in a wait state, are less of an issue, but they still
On 11/07/2010 20:29, Philippe Sigaud wrote:
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 20:00, div0 d...@users.sourceforge.net
mailto:d...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
On 11/07/2010 15:28, Philippe Sigaud wrote:
- Why is a 2 threads version repeatedly thrice as fast as a no
thread version?
Hello div0,
On 11/07/2010 20:00, BCS wrote:
Hello div0,
The rule of thumb is don't bother spawning more threads than you
have cpus. You're just wasting resources mostly.
You REALLY don't want more threads trying to run than you have cores.
Threads in a wait state, are less of an issue,
Hello div0,
On 11/07/2010 21:43, BCS wrote:
In what way?
Sometimes it just makes your program design easier if you fork a
process / spawn a thread; than trying to manage a thread pool and
allocating work to a fixed number of threads. Programmer time is more
expensive than cpu time and it
The rule of thumb is don't bother spawning more threads than you
have cpus. You're just wasting resources mostly.
You REALLY don't want more threads trying to run than you have cores.
Threads in a wait state, are less of an issue, but they still use up
resources.
Personally I'd never use
13 matches
Mail list logo
