httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Henrik Vendelbo" <hvende...@bluprints.com>
Subject Sv: apache-2.0/src/lib/apr/lib apr_cpystrn.c
Date Sun, 17 Oct 1999 13:52:32 GMT
That was not my question, but then in a way it was. I was trying to assess the performance
difference between a library string function written C (like ap_cpystrn) and the string copying
functions generated by the compiler. The ones generated by the compiler uses (in the iAPX86
case) special string/array machinecode functions which are much faster. 

Now this is of course irrelevant if all string manipulation in apache must use special functions.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Ryan Bloom <rbb@raleigh.ibm.com>
To: <new-httpd@apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 1999 1:53 PM
Subject: Re: apache-2.0/src/lib/apr/lib apr_cpystrn.c


> 
> If you are asking why we have created our own ap_cpystrn function, please
> read the docs in the apr_cpystrn file.  They cover the reason for
> implementing it ourselves.  If this is not your question, please let me
> know, and I will try to answer what you are actually asking.
> 
> Ryan
> 
> On Thu, 14 Oct 1999, Henrik Vendelbo wrote:
> 
> > roll our own cpystrn, makes sense, but what about the inlined (inserted,no function
call, expanded by compiler to specialized machinecode) standard string copy functions, they
supposedly work much faster.
> > 
> > Do we have any assessment on what difference in apache performance there is. I'm
sure that it does a lot of string juggling, but it might not matter.
> > 
> > \Henrik 
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Ryan Bloom rbb@raleigh.ibm.com
> 4205 S Miami Blvd 
> RTP, NC 27709 It's a beautiful sight to see good dancers 
> doing simple steps.  It's a painful sight to
> see beginners doing complicated patterns. 
> 
> 


Mime
View raw message