From owner-freebsd-arch Mon Nov 1 6:14:13 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93E6014FF9 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 06:13:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA01743 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 15:13:56 +0100 (CET) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id PAA72693 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 15:13:56 +0100 (MET) Received: from mail.tvol.com (mail.wgate.com [38.219.83.4]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11E0C14FF9 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 06:13:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rjesup@wgate.com) Received: from jesup.eng.tvol.net (jesup.eng.tvol.net [10.32.2.26]) by mail.tvol.com (8.8.8/8.8.3) with ESMTP id JAA19526 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 09:09:04 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: Randell Jesup To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: stpcpy() References: <199910312349.CAA02684@tejblum.pp.ru> <19991031230542.B10904@dragon.nuxi.com> From: Randell Jesup Date: 01 Nov 1999 10:10:15 +0000 In-Reply-To: "David O'Brien"'s message of "Sun, 31 Oct 1999 23:05:42 -0800" Message-ID: X-Mailer: Gnus v5.6.43/Emacs 20.4 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG "David O'Brien" 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