Heap / Stack Access Speed

Quick question. Using C, is memory or the program's stack faster to access then the memory that's allocated on the heap?

stack is much hotter, but be careful with that bitch. she may be a bit bulkier but the heap is always there for you when you need her

Unless you're using some strange processor architecture, no.

>>3
Incorrect, but the difference is very, very tiny. When using heap memory, it's possible that the page could be inside the page/swap file. Most people wouldn't need to worry about that thought.

Is it not also such that stack variables can be accessed with an 8-bit displacement, while heap variables will require the full 32-bit displacement?

>>1,5
I'm sure the size of your mov instruction is the bottleneck in your program.

>>6
It is. That is why I'm using a ENTERPRISE-GRADE object-oriented mov replacement

>>7
So you decided to fix the bottleneck by replacing one instruction with one that is an order of magnitude more bloated? You should be a consultant.

Using C
No. C has nothing to do with it.

>>1
faster to access then
faster then
Excuse my brutal honesty, but your grammar is not unlike that of an idiot.
When comparing, you should use ``than''. ``Then'' is used after ``if'' or in similar situations.

>>10
yhbt

>>4
The stack can be swapped out too, so your point is moot.

>>4
The stack for a program is also likely in the processor's cache, so it is even more imperceptibly faster.

SEX MY SEX

>>14
SEX MY ANUS

>>15
Anus My Anus

>>13
This pretty much answers OP's question. The top of the stack is virtually always in the processor cache, whereas heap is hit or miss (literally) depending on the order of your allocations, how fragmented your memory is, how much memory you have overall, etc.

But the real answer to your question, >>1, is that if you're asking such a high-level question without understanding how processor caches work, then you should not be worrying about it.