apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject RE: more notes on the apr_time_t issue
Date Mon, 15 Jul 2002 03:38:48 GMT
At 10:09 PM 7/14/2002, Ryan Bloom wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Jul 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
> > At 09:54 PM 7/14/2002, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > >The macros are no faster than the constant.  The implementation is
> > >faster.  Completely different.
> >
> > This statement really confused me.  Please explain.
>
>You made the statement that the macros were considerably faster than the
>current scalar.  That isn't true.  The macros that are currently
>implemented are equivalant to the constant scalar.  The new macros that
>implement things in binary time are faster than the current scalar, but
>that has nothing to do with whether it is macro-ized or not, it is all
>about the implementation.

Yes, they are.  The current scalar causes integer int64 division.
The macro and a busec implementation would use binary right shifts.

That is faster.

Bill



Mime
View raw message