lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Apr]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: faster strcpy()
Date
From

Weird. What exactly are you trying to say? The original point was
that a byte-by-byte strcpy() was slower than a strlen() followed by a
word-by-word memcpy().

You seem to be disputing this, but then offering much evidence that
it's true.

The 'benchmark' you offered compares two implementations of
strlen+memcpy , not byte-by-byte-cpy vs strlen+memcpy.

Michael.

In message <Pine.LNX.3.95.980426235508.3429D-100000@chaos.analogic.com>, "Richa
rd B. Johnson" writes:
> On 27 Apr 1998, Michael O'Reilly wrote:
> [SNIPPED for brevity]
> This is my last response on this subject.
> > And each word is 4 bytes, so you're taking 6 clocks per word + const,
> > or 1.5 clocks per byte + const.
>
> In the exampled cited, each word is 2 bytes. Words have always been
> two bytes. Longwords have 4 bytes. A longword copy requires more
> overhead in setting up plus it has to copy possibly 3 unaligned
> bytes.
> >
> > Have you actually tried benchmarking this? It's kinda hard to argue
> > with the facts.
> >
> The benchmark has been submitted.
>
> Cheers,
> Dick Johnson
> ***** FILE SYSTEM MODIFIED *****
> Penguin : Linux version 2.1.92 on an i586 machine (66.15 BogoMips).
> Warning : It's hard to remain at the trailing edge of technology.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:42    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans