Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: faster strcpy() | Date | Mon, 27 Apr 1998 12:50:56 +0800 | From | "Michael O'Reilly" <> |
| |
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
| |