Looks like your last commit to apr_tables.c was 4 days ago. This run was using code I pulled from CVS this afternoon.
Bill > > Bill Stoddard wrote: > > >Subroutine Name Source File Visit > Enter % Ticks > >=============== =========== ===== > ===== ==== ===== > >.ap_rgetline_core protocol.c 36 6 > 1.5 709 > > > > Darn, all that optimization work and it's still at the top of the list. > > >Shlib Subroutine Source File Visit > Enter % Ticks > >================ =========== ===== > ===== ==== ===== > >.apr_palloc apr_pools.c 78 78 > 2.9 1404 > >.__is_wctype_std libc/__is_wctype_std.c 66 66 > 2.8 1320 > >.apr_table_get apr_tables.c 21 17 > 2.6 1229 > >.__divu64 divu64.s 3 3 > 2.0 976 > >.__divi64 divi64.s 4 4 > 1.9 917 > >.apr_table_setn apr_tables.c 24 12 > 1.6 781 > > > > Was this with the latest version of the apr_table code? If so, I've > run out of ways to speed up apr_table_get() and apr_table_setn() without > changing the internal data structure used by the tables to something > that supports faster-than-O(n) lookups. > > --Brian > >
