Thread: allocating structs within STL vectors

I didn't mean a vector<double*> I meant using a vector<double> vs. double*

Bottom line appears to be that I should use vector<double> instead of double*

A double* and a vector<double> are theoretically just as good but with Visual C++ you may need to use some compiler flags to turn off unnecessary bounds checking for vector.

I am writing a program that includes functions that must be lighting fast. I'm not knowledgeable in optimization techniques, so any up-front time savings help.

Don't optimise prematurely. Write a program that works first, and then, if you are not satisfied with the performance, check what exactly is taking too long.

That said, don't pessimize prematurely, either. Use general optimization techniques that don't make the code less readable, such as passing large objects by reference, upfront.

King Mir, you're quoting the wrong person.

It seems so far that we're all just assuming that we know the answer to the below question:
xyz_size isn't a constant known at compile time is it?
Not meaning to insult anyone of course.