> > >
> > > This is ~ 1.5 * num_of_bytes + const
> > >
> >
> > Bull this is 6 times the number of words as stated, not 1.5 times
> > anything.
>
> And each word is 4 bytes, so you're taking 6 clocks per word + const,
> or 1.5 clocks per byte + const.
>
> > > So this strlen + move is ~11.5 * num_of_bytes whereas the strcopy is
> > > ~16 * num_of_bytes
> >
> > Wrong.
>
> Have you actually tried benchmarking this? It's kinda hard to argue
> with the facts.
As the Vorlons say, "Understanding is a 3-edged sword." Your Intel,
their Intel, and the clones and non-clones somewhere in the middle.
Keith (a486-3x33, libc5, strlen+move faster than strcpy)
-- "The avalanche has already started; |Linux: http://www.linuxhq.com |"Zooty, it is too late for the pebbles to |KDE: http://www.kde.org | zoot vote." Kosh, "Believers", Babylon 5 |Keith: kwrohrer@enteract.com | zoot!" www.midwinter.com/lurk/lurker.html |http://www.enteract.com/~kwrohrer | --Rebo- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu