Philip Hazel wrote: >> the code a bit to fit the scheme. On my system this brings down the string >> compares in this section for a usual message from 80-100 to 12-15. > > 12-15 what? Microseconds? Does this significantly affect the amount of
Number of calls on Ustrncmp (I didn't test it for Ustrcmp, as I didn't recognize the usage of it first). > processing needed to handle a message. I'm afraid I'm a bit skeptical > that is will be significant, but I am not always good at guessing these > things. (And remember that Exim is I/O limited; cpu usage isn't usually > an issue.) With all the features added over the time, CPU becomes an issue more and more. Especially with spam and virus-scanning. But yes, IO should still be the bigger problem. I would be interested in a real benchmark here. > Aside: what has happened, of course, is that the number of things stored > on the spool has increased a lot since I first wrote that code. If we > are going to optimize it, maybe a binary-chop search on an ordered list > would be faster still? Just a guess, but I don't think it will be much faster, especially because the options are of different types, so you need some special treatment anyway. > Eh? The difference between Ustrcmp and Ustrncmp has nothing to do with > upper/lower case! It should all be in lower case. Uuhh, sorry I've got confused here. :) I'm getting a bit rusty in my old days. Mea maxima culpa. Nico -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
