Prev: Objects returned by value don't use copy constructors!
Next: About Int2Type
From: James Dennett on 11 Jan 2008 02:56
Matthias Buelow wrote:
> Victor V. Terber wrote:
>
>> Does such a replacement of list by deque seem reasonable? Would you
>> typically expect real-world performance changes?
>
> If properly implemented, ordinary lists and doubly-linked lists have the
> same performance characteristics for common operations. The only
> advantage of a doubly-linked list is that you can traverse it backwards.

But that's not the question here, as std::deque is *not* a linked list,
but rather a container supporting random access iterators. As others
have noted, performance is likely to be better in the user's application
because of the reduced use of dynamic memory allocation, *but* if the
memory allocator is good or if elements are rarely added compared to
how often they are read then the additional complexity of std::deque
might overwhelm the memory allocation costs.

-- James

--
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]

 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Objects returned by value don't use copy constructors!
Next: About Int2Type