Return-Path: Delivered-To: new-httpd-archive@hyperreal.org Received: (qmail 27199 invoked by uid 6000); 17 Oct 1999 13:55:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 27191 invoked from network); 17 Oct 1999 13:55:27 -0000 Received: from fepd.post.tele.dk (195.41.46.149) by taz.hyperreal.org with SMTP; 17 Oct 1999 13:55:27 -0000 Received: from pixie ([195.249.202.221]) by fepD.post.tele.dk (InterMail vM.4.01.02.00 201-229-116) with SMTP id <19991017135525.SNRM10238.fepD.post.tele.dk@pixie> for ; Sun, 17 Oct 1999 15:55:25 +0200 Message-ID: <017801bf18a6$dc7731a0$4600a8c0@bluprints.com> From: "Henrik Vendelbo" To: References: Subject: Sv: apache-2.0/src/lib/apr/lib apr_cpystrn.c Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 15:52:32 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org 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.=20 Now this is of course irrelevant if all string manipulation in apache = must use special functions. ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Ryan Bloom To: Sent: Thursday, October 14, 1999 1:53 PM Subject: Re: apache-2.0/src/lib/apr/lib apr_cpystrn.c >=20 > 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. >=20 > Ryan >=20 > On Thu, 14 Oct 1999, Henrik Vendelbo wrote: >=20 > > 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. > >=20 > > 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. > >=20 > > \Henrik=20 > >=20 >=20 > = _______________________________________________________________________ > Ryan Bloom rbb@raleigh.ibm.com > 4205 S Miami Blvd=20 > RTP, NC 27709 It's a beautiful sight to see good dancers=20 > doing simple steps. It's a painful sight to > see beginners doing complicated patterns.=20 >=20 >=20