Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 22:51:15 +0200 From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@des.no> To: "Sean C. Farley" <scf@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Assembly string functions in i386 libc Message-ID: <86lkdl5osc.fsf@dwp.des.no> In-Reply-To: <20070711183217.C2385@thor.farley.org> (Sean C. Farley's message of "Wed\, 11 Jul 2007 18\:43\:00 -0500 \(CDT\)") References: <20070711134721.D2385@thor.farley.org> <20070711221338.GC20178@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <200707112221.l6BML722062857@apollo.backplane.com> <20070711183217.C2385@thor.farley.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Sean C. Farley" <scf@FreeBSD.org> writes: > On Wed, 11 Jul 2007, Matthew Dillon wrote: > > Long ago I decided that strlen() was simply not in the critical > > path for virtually any program. > Since strlen() is used in every program directly or indirectly through > libc, I thought it was beneficial to make it faster. The first rule of optimization is: don't do it. The second rule of optimization is: don't do it yet. The third rule of optimization is: don't optimize what you haven't measured. Can you show us an actual application that spends a significant part of its run time in strlen()? DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86lkdl5osc.fsf>