From owner-freebsd-current  Sat Apr  6 07:47:18 1996
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id HAA04140
          for current-outgoing; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 07:47:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ref.tfs.com (ref.tfs.com [140.145.254.251])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id HAA04112
          for <current@freebsd.org>; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 07:47:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from julian@localhost) by ref.tfs.com (8.7.3/8.6.9) id MAA13929; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 12:11:49 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199604052011.MAA13929@ref.tfs.com>
Subject: Re: fast memory copy for large data sizes
To: mrami@minerva.cis.yale.edu
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 12:11:49 -0800 (PST)
From: "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
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960405141056.2754A-100000@mramirez.sy.yale.edu> from "Marc Ramirez" at Apr 5, 96 02:13:11 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25 ME8b]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> 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?

julian