Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 10682 invoked by uid 500); 11 Jul 2002 05:05:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 10671 invoked from network); 11 Jul 2002 05:05:44 -0000 Message-ID: <3D2CF656.6000700@apache.org> Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 20:07:02 -0700 From: Brian Pane User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020530 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: APR Development List Subject: Re: [PATCH] example BUSEC patch for benchmarking only References: <3D2CF59F.5050707@apache.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Brian Pane wrote: > Bill Stoddard wrote: > >> I've not looked at the generated code, but profiling indicates that an >> additional division is happening, adding an extra 231 instructions. >> (xlc_r -O2) >> > > If you redefine the macro as a shift, does the profile look better? er, I mean redefine apr_time_sec() as a shift, and apr_time_usec() as "value & mask"... --Brian