Date: 01 Nov 1999 10:10:15 +0000 From: Randell Jesup <rjesup@wgate.com> To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: stpcpy() Message-ID: <ybuln8ih69k.fsf@jesup.eng.tvol.net.jesup.eng.tvol.net> In-Reply-To: "David O'Brien"'s message of "Sun, 31 Oct 1999 23:05:42 -0800" References: <199910312349.CAA02684@tejblum.pp.ru> <ybuu2n7gg1x.fsf@jesup.eng.tvol.net.jesup.eng.tvol.net> <19991031230542.B10904@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG> writes:
>> I don't know about you, but I code for systems where cutting CPU usage
>> by 1% can actually make a real difference in the field and to costs.
>> Perhaps this won't get me 1% - but a fraction of a percent here and
>> another there adds up, and this is at truely zero cost.
>
>So you don't program in C, you use ASM. So you don't program in C++,
>you use C. Going "down" a step in each of these cases will save you much
>more than 1%.
At an order of magnitude increase in cost and maintainance cost,
and loss of portability. Don't think I'm shy to use ASM; I've worked on
entire multi-threaded FS's in ASM - but it should be used exceeedingly
sparingly (of course) in what's inherently multi-platform code.
>> While non-ANSI standard, this particular function has been
>> virtually standard in PC compilers for a Long Time. Like I said, near the
>It isn't in Micro$oft C version 6.
If true (for the current version?), that's a reasonable argument.
(As are some of Warner's arguments.) Where did it come from? SysV?? I
know Lattice had it back in the mid/late 80's.
If it's not included, it adds to the case for a compat
(libinuxcompat?) library.
--
Randell Jesup, Worldgate Communications, ex-Scala, ex-Amiga OS team ('88-94)
rjesup@wgate.com
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ybuln8ih69k.fsf>