Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 26 Apr 1998 23:03:03 +0200 | From | Alexander Kjeldaas <> | Subject | Re: faster strcpy() |
| |
On Sun, Apr 26, 1998, kwrohrer@enteract.com answered: > And lo, Alexander Kjeldaas saith unto me: > > Once upon a time, I was interested in compilers (guess I still am) and > > it bothered me that languages often need null-terminated strings to be > > compatible with the "C"-world. So I came up with the idea that in my > > compiler, I would pad all strings to be a multiple of the word-size of > > the machine. Then I would use between 4 and 1 null-bytes to terminate > > the string. That way, I remained compatible with C, but in all the > > str* routines, I only have to check one byte to know if I had come to > > the end of the string. > So what part of strtok's behavior would you break? (Assuming you could > get the compiler to align all your strings right...)
break strtok?
> > It doesn't use any more memory either unless > > you want to pack strings really tight, something you usually don't > > want to do to avoid alignment problems. > Unless, of course, you're dealing with substrings... >
Substrings are ok if you align your reads. Also, in many languages substrings have a different type than normal strings, so you can implement optimized routines for normal strings that doesn't have to deal with unaligned strings.
astor
-- Alexander Kjeldaas, Guardian Networks AS, Trondheim, Norway http://www.guardian.no/
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
| |