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    [W:0.029 / U:387.916 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site