Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 09:51:40 +0100 (MET) From: J Wunsch <j@uriah.heep.sax.de> To: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: snprintf vs. strncpy (was: Re: crontab security hole) Message-ID: <199612170851.JAA14284@uriah.heep.sax.de> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95.961216210309.10949D-100000@alive.ampr.ab.ca> from Marc Slemko at "Dec 16, 96 09:25:18 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As Marc Slemko wrote: > I think this discussion is far too sane. Let's see who can make up the > most meaningless numbers. > marcs@alive:/tmp/str$ time ./snprintf ; time ./strncpy ; time ./strncpy-2 > 6.86 real 5.65 user 0.02 sys > 11.50 real 9.85 user 0.00 sys > 9.54 real 9.15 user 0.01 sys > marcs@alive:/tmp/str$ funny. :) > Hmm. Seems like snprintf is nearly twice as fast in this case. > What was that about considering your options? Considering that we > already have sprintf in Vixie's code... Yep, that's about my thought as well... and, it's often pointless to over-optimize e.g. one-time initializations if the real waste of time happens somewhere in an inner loop that's called a thousand times anyway. (I haven't checked crontab, and i don't claim this were the case there.) Btw., the ``bloat!'' argument is a moot point for shared linked programs anyway. stdio is always present then in its shared incarnation, and due to so many programs using it so heavily, there's a high probability that the related pages from the shared lib are semi-resident in memory. -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199612170851.JAA14284>