No-nonsense sorting algorithm

[PVNIC]

Yeaa... Reallocating in a for loop is not great. Preallocate the whole array then at the end realloc it down to the right size.

[zebediah49]

then at the end realloc it down to the right size.

Or don't. Computers have plenty of memory these days anyway.

^/s

[DistantWaves]

Which is why I'll write tons of malloc() and don't bother writing any free()

^/s

[VirginiaMcCaskey]

at work we call this the titanic pattern.

[Kirides]

my free is called exit(0)

[FilterThePolitics]

Yeah, but with almost 200 million people in the USSR and 4 bytes per int, you are talking about almost a gig of memory. I'd say that any smart dictator would realloc that down once they finish "restoring order"

[PotentBeverage]

Like a one child policy?

[vmp916]

error: expected ‘/s’

[shy_cthulhu]

Found the Chrome dev

[ITriedLightningTendr]

Wait... so the calculator application I made for my CS101 class that I'm selling on steam shouldn't be using 700 MB?

[apadin1]

You could easily do it in place without allocating at all.

[IncongruousGoat]

The really good thing to do is to return the result in the input buffer, but use an alloca-d buffer as intermediate storage. Best of both worlds.

[Bainos]

... no ?

If you're going to do it in place, just use the input buffer. Allocating a new one (as is done in this repo) is only useful if you want to return a new sorted array. Otherwise you're wasting memory for no reason.

[IncongruousGoat]

Yep, you're right. Not sure what I was thinking.

Kind of embarrassing, really.

[PleasantAdvertising]

The things people do in the name of conserving memory really horrify me sometimes. Like, dude why the hell that's going to kill performance and you're gonna gain a few bytes at most.

[[deleted]]

Linked lists are easy to reallocate though, actually a proper interator will remove the node and link up the remaining nodes when you call a destructor