From: bc@nospicedham.freeuk.com   
      
   On 21/07/2018 23:18, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:   
   > On Saturday, July 21, 2018 at 1:57:15 PM UTC-4, Bart wrote:   
   >> Maybe you /should/ have tested it, because it doesn't compile!   
   >   
   > Exclamation point and all..   
   >   
   > Bart, are you a developer?  The error in the compilation is trivial   
   > and easy to solve.  I missed something in quick editing and I saw   
   > it almost as I hit the post button, but I didn't think it was worth   
   > reposting because I presume other people could fix it.   
      
      
   Is it that simple? The first error in your code was that 'num' was not   
   defined. So I moved that further up.   
      
   But there was another error: there were too few arguments to the   
   function call, one done via an array of functions pointers.   
      
   What should the arguments be? I don't know; I wanted to just blindly run   
   your code without needing to understand or tweak it. And if I did tweak   
   it, would I be running your code or mine?   
      
   Since you clearly didn't run the posted code, it didn't inspire much   
   confidence in wanting to fix it!   
      
   (I since have modified it to change the function pointer to take no   
   parameters - a guess - and ran it and it seemed to work. And somewhat   
   faster than Ben's version too, perhaps 15% faster. Although I would need   
   to run both within a short time of each other to properly compare.)   
      
   It is still not significantly faster than my interpreted code version   
   (218ms yours vs 234ms interpreted vs 249ms Ben's). So I don't think much   
   be done fiddling with the logic unless perhaps you get rid of printf and   
   directly write to a memory buffer. But it would need to be an expanding   
   one unless you can estimate the size from N.   
      
      
   --   
   bart   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)