Sender: nate AT cartsys DOT com
Message-ID: <35833ED8.9EB75F08@cartsys.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1998 20:09:12 -0700
From: Nate Eldredge <nate AT cartsys DOT com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Matthew Conte <spam AT somebody DOT else>
CC: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: 64k demo (slightly off-topic reply)
References: <35819A38 DOT C1BA3FCB AT hotmail DOT com> <358305BC DOT 61AB AT stud DOT warande DOT ruu DOT nl> <6lun9s$cie AT dfw-ixnews10 DOT ix DOT netcom DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Matthew Conte wrote:
> 
> Elliott Oti wrote in message <358305BC DOT 61AB AT stud DOT warande DOT ruu DOT nl>...
> >* Take it easy on static arrays and static global variables and try and
> >allocate as much dynamically as you can.
> 
> Quick question: is access to a dynamically allocated array slower than a
> static global array, or are they the same?

They're the same.  Memory is memory.  Of course, if it gets swapped out,
it will be slower, but that can apply in either case.

-- 

Nate Eldredge
nate AT cartsys DOT com