Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 14:50:49 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@NUXI.com> To: "Cc@FreeBSD.ORG"@FreeBSD.ORG:Dmitrij Tejblum <tejblum@arc.hq.cti.ru>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: stpcpy() Message-ID: <19991031145049.A90745@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9910311404140.11004-100000@alphplex.bde.org>; from bde@zeta.org.au on Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 02:07:26PM %2B1100 References: <199910302228.CAA03763@tejblum.pp.ru> <Pine.BSF.4.10.9910311404140.11004-100000@alphplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 02:07:26PM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote: > > Good stpcpy() could double performance in some cases. You would touch a > > symbol once where you previously touched it twice. > stpcpy() could halve performance in some cases (when the compiler inlines > and combines strcpy() and strlen() but doesn't do anything special with > stpcpy(), and inlining is good). Bruce hit the nail right on the head -- people are making assumptions with out know what their compiler is doing. Also, strcpy() and strlen() could easily be highly optimized ASM routines that together are still faster than a C stpcpy(). > > It actually may matter in some text-processing applications. Yes, BUT one should only use these non-standard functions AFTER they've actually done some profiling and see where the program is REALLY spending their time. -- -- David (obrien@NUXI.com) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19991031145049.A90745>