> From: Bill Stoddard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > This will work, and should be portable. Just a question, how big a > > performance improvement is this? Have we hit the point where we are > > optimizing code just to optimize code? > > This would be a big improvement. A shift is a -lot- cheaper than a 64 bit > division. We could leave apr_time_t exactly as it is today and use > techniques like this to solve the performance problem. Perhaps use a > better > (more accurate) hurestic to take resolution out of apr_time_t. I see > nothing wrong with this approach and think we should actively consider it.
Ok, I am almost convinced. Can we do a quick profile run to get some numbers behind this? Ryan
