From owner-freebsd-current  Fri Apr  5 12:33:52 1996
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id MAA09705
          for current-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 12:33:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mramirez.sy.yale.edu (mramirez.sy.yale.edu [130.132.57.207])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA09696
          for <current@freebsd.org>; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 12:33:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from mrami@localhost) by mramirez.sy.yale.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) id PAA08637; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 15:31:15 -0500
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 15:31:11 -0500 (EST)
From: Marc Ramirez <mrami@mramirez.sy.yale.edu>
Reply-To: mrami@minerva.cis.yale.edu
To: JULIAN Elischer <julian@ref.tfs.com>
cc: asami@cs.berkeley.edu, current@freebsd.org, nisha@cs.berkeley.edu,
        tege@matematik.su.se, hasty@rah.star-gate.com
Subject: Re: fast memory copy for large data sizes
In-Reply-To: <199604052011.MAA13929@ref.tfs.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960405152544.2754C-100000@mramirez.sy.yale.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 5 Apr 1996, JULIAN Elischer wrote:

> > sh runtests
> >     size     libc             ours
> >       32   7.629395 MB/s   7.629395 MB/s
> >       64  12.207031 MB/s   4.695012 MB/s
> [...]
> >  2097152  12.164192 MB/s   7.725020 MB/s
> >  4194304  12.290410 MB/s   7.719504 MB/s
> > mrami[~/bcopy]$
> 
> these tests SEEM to be indicating that the bcopy in libc
> is already better!  or am I misreading something?

Well, remember, my chip isn't even an Intel part! But you must be 
careful which chips you activate it with; I can imagine the FPbcopy 
really sucking on a NexGen 586 with emulated FP...

Marc.

--
Encyclopedia Salesmen:
        Invite them all in.  Nip out the back door.  Phone the police
and tell them your house is being burgled.
	-- Mike Harding, "The Armchair Anarchist's Almanac"