On Sep 4, 2012, at 8:07 AM, "Matthew Dowle" wrote:
>
>> Actually, my apologies, I was assuming that your example was based on the
>> SO question while it is not at all (the code is not involved in that test
>> case). Reversing the order does indeed cause a delay. Switching to a
>> single index d
> Actually, my apologies, I was assuming that your example was based on the
> SO question while it is not at all (the code is not involved in that test
> case). Reversing the order does indeed cause a delay. Switching to a
> single index doesn't seem to have any impact. R-devel has the faster
> ve
Actually, my apologies, I was assuming that your example was based on the SO
question while it is not at all (the code is not involved in that test case).
Reversing the order does indeed cause a delay. Switching to a single index
doesn't seem to have any impact. R-devel has the faster version no
On Sep 2, 2012, at 10:04 PM, Matthew Dowle wrote:
>
> In do_matrix in src/array.c there is a type switch containing :
>
> case LGLSXP :
>for (i = 0; i < nr; i++)
>for (j = 0; j < nc; j++)
>LOGICAL(ans)[i + j * NR] = NA_LOGICAL;
>
> That seems page inefficient, iiuc. Think it sho
In do_matrix in src/array.c there is a type switch containing :
case LGLSXP :
for (i = 0; i < nr; i++)
for (j = 0; j < nc; j++)
LOGICAL(ans)[i + j * NR] = NA_LOGICAL;
That seems page inefficient, iiuc. Think it should be :
case LGLSXP :
for (j = 0; j < nc; j++)
for (i =
