From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat May  5 22:11:39 2007
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: arch@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21AFA16A408;
	Sat,  5 May 2007 22:11:39 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from ache@nagual.pp.ru)
Received: from nagual.pp.ru (nagual.pp.ru [194.87.13.69])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49C5313C4EC;
	Sat,  5 May 2007 22:11:36 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from ache@nagual.pp.ru)
Received: from nagual.pp.ru (ache@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by nagual.pp.ru (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l45MBPZ6050534;
	Sun, 6 May 2007 02:11:25 +0400 (MSD)
	(envelope-from ache@nagual.pp.ru)
Received: (from ache@localhost)
	by nagual.pp.ru (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id l45MBP2b050533;
	Sun, 6 May 2007 02:11:25 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from ache)
Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 02:11:25 +0400
From: Andrey Chernov <ache@freebsd.org>
To: "Sean C. Farley" <sean-freebsd@farley.org>
Message-ID: <20070505221125.GA50439@nagual.pp.ru>
References: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0705021332020.8590@sea.ntplx.net>
	<20070502183100.P1317@baba.farley.org>
	<Pine.GSO.4.64.0705022034180.8590@sea.ntplx.net>
	<20070502230413.Y30614@thor.farley.org>
	<20070503160351.GA15008@nagual.pp.ru>
	<20070504085905.J39482@thor.farley.org>
	<20070504213312.GA33163@nagual.pp.ru>
	<20070504174657.D1343@thor.farley.org>
	<20070505213202.GA49925@nagual.pp.ru>
	<20070505163707.J6670@thor.farley.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20070505163707.J6670@thor.farley.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-06)
Cc: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>, arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: HEADS DOWN
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture <freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 May 2007 22:11:39 -0000

On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 04:48:44PM -0500, Sean C. Farley wrote:
>  I have the same assembly output.  Inlined __strleneq() ends up being
>  faster on my system than GCC's strlen() when I changed all calls where
>  checkEquals equaled false.  I believe you that it should be faster with
>  GCC's version, but it is not ending up that way on my Athlon XP and
>  Pentium 4 systems running FreeBSD 6.2.
> 
>  There is now a sysenv-strlen.c that I tested the timings.c program in
>  regressions/environment directory.  It keeps showing __strleneq() to be
>  faster.

I wonder how it possible. Your after "if" variant becomes
.L13:
        incl    %eax
        cmpb    $0, (%eax)
        jne .L13
which should be slower in general than gcc ones.

Could you please run some test for just this two functions (without all 
other stuff): strlen() (gcc -O) and inlined __strleneq() for some array of 
different-size strings?

-- 
http://ache.pp.ru/