Re^2: double **

Hello Sam, thank for your email. SO my conclusion is that it is going to be efficient to call a c routine with a AoA, I imagined that the machine representation was close between a AoA and a double [][]! It looks like that I am wrong. Will it it be a lot more efficient to pass several double [] ? Regards. Patrick Dupre The University of York

Comment on Re^2: double **

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: double ** by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Jul 03, 2008 at 17:00 UTC
Just a thought, but maybe you could utilise PDLs piddles in your perl code and obtain the address of it for passing to your C code? Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. "Too many [] have been sedated by an oppressive environment of political correctness and risk aversion."	[reply]
Re^4: double ** by pdupre (Acolyte) on Jul 03, 2008 at 19:35 UTC
Thank again, I am just surprise to not find something ready to go (ie. conversion between double [][] and AoA). Patrick Dupre The University of York	[reply]
Re^3: double ** by samtregar (Abbot) on Jul 03, 2008 at 16:50 UTC
Yup, AVs and C arrays are very different beasts. If the volume of data is the same I don't think you'll see a big difference between a double[][] and several double[]s but only you know the details well enough to judge. -sam	[reply]