If I remember correctly, sort does not allocate any memory if you sort an array with only one reference.
Either way, I would be more conserned with how much extra time it takes than how much extra memory it takes.
/Hubbe
On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, Martin Stjernholm, Roxen IS @ Pike developers forum wrote:
It's very simple: Just remember the original position and sort on that when items are equal otherwise. That requires a little bit more memory so a separate stable version could be considered. But I don't think it's worth the trouble since sort() already temporarily allocates memory linear to the size of the sorted array.
which algorithm are you actually using?
--- Ludger
/ Martin Stjernholm, Roxen IS
Previous text:
2003-04-23 16:18: Subject: sort
Martin Stjernholm had somewhat interesting ideas regarding making any unstable sort algorithm stable with a more or less cheap wrapper. I'm hoping he might comment on the subject. :)
/ Johan Sundström (folkskådare)
/ Fredrik (Naranek) Hubinette (Real Build Master)
Previous text:
2003-04-24 09:30: Subject: Re: sort
On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, Martin Stjernholm, Roxen IS @ Pike developers forum wrote:
It's very simple: Just remember the original position and sort on that when items are equal otherwise. That requires a little bit more memory so a separate stable version could be considered. But I don't think it's worth the trouble since sort() already temporarily allocates memory linear to the size of the sorted array.
which algorithm are you actually using?
--- Ludger
/ Martin Stjernholm, Roxen IS
Previous text:
2003-04-23 16:18: Subject: sort
Martin Stjernholm had somewhat interesting ideas regarding making any unstable sort algorithm stable with a more or less cheap wrapper. I'm hoping he might comment on the subject. :)
/ Johan Sundström (folkskådare)
/ Brevbäraren