Hi Dmitry,
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dmitry Stogov"
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009
Hi Matt,
Matt Wilmas wrote:
Hi again Dmitry,
Just wanted to say that I think I can make your code a bit smaller after
looking at it closer.
It would be great, but keep in mind that performance is more important.
I know. :-)
Don't quite have enough time to modify and verify it now, but I'll be
back later (around the usual time) to let you know either way. :-)
I'm waiting for your changes.
No patch, but here's the straight code:
http://realplain.com/php/handle_numeric.txt
With your benchmark script, if I changed one of the keys, it would sometimes
radically affect the time of another key value, hmm. But in my own tests,
this was always faster. Some notes:
I've never understood why the terminating null check is there... I don't
see why it would be missing if there aren't other problems in code. A place
for UNEXPECTED()?
I removed the special handling of "0" and it's faster.
(Oh no, I see you just commited your code right now, LOL. Sorry I didn't
send this sooner. :-/)
For the leading 0 check, I changed it back to "length > 2" again instead of
the "end - tmp != 1" calculation.
I used ++tmp instead of 2 *tmp++ because I assume having the increment in
just one place creates less instructions. ;-) (For size, not speed.)
Finally, in the Unicode version (copied, untested), I'm using the 0x values
that were there originally instead of '0' char values...
Thanks. Dmitry.
Again, sorry I was about 20 minutes late with this! :-(
- Matt
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
