From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 23 20:02:20 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEF3437B401; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 20:02:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from flood.ping.uio.no (flood.ping.uio.no [129.240.78.31]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 204EF43FBD; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 20:02:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from des@ofug.org) Received: by flood.ping.uio.no (Postfix, from userid 2602) id 342475308; Thu, 24 Apr 2003 05:02:17 +0200 (CEST) X-URL: http://www.ofug.org/~des/ X-Disclaimer: The views expressed in this message do not necessarily coincide with those of any organisation or company with which I am or have been affiliated. To: Alex Semenyaka From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 05:02:17 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20030420004639.GA52081@snark.ratmir.ru> (Alex Semenyaka's message of "Sun, 20 Apr 2003 04:46:39 +0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.090015 (Oort Gnus v0.15) Emacs/21.2 References: <20030420004639.GA52081@snark.ratmir.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 20:10:49 -0700 cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org Subject: Re: tjr@@freebsd.org, imp@freebsd.org, ru@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 03:02:21 -0000 Alex Semenyaka writes: > Brief description what was done: I've chanched the arithmitics in the /bin/sh > from 32 bits to 64 bits. There are some doubts that it conforms to the > standards: it does, I have send a quotations to -standards, there were no > objections. Couple of people advuces me to use intmax_t and %jd - I've rewritten > the patch, now there is those species instead of long long and %qd. The last > question was performance, I will show the results of measurements below. Performance is irrelevant. Anyone who is doing so much arithmetic in the shell that performance is an issue should take a long hard look at dc(1). The only issues here are 1) correctness 2) portability (long long / %qd is not portable) and 3) standards compliance. You can safely ignore anyone trying to tell you otherwise. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@ofug.org