From: "Daniel_Marjamäki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 10:16:02 +0100
> I have done a little testing on my own. My results is that memcpy is
> many times faster even with aligned data.
Your test program doesn't make any measurements, from where did
you get these "results"?
Also,
From: Daniel_Marjamäki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 10:16:02 +0100
I have done a little testing on my own. My results is that memcpy is
many times faster even with aligned data.
Your test program doesn't make any measurements, from where did
you get these results?
Also, your test
Hello!
I have done a little testing on my own. My results is that memcpy is
many times faster even with aligned data.
I am testing in an ordinary console program. I am including the code below.
If I'm doing something wrong, please tell me so.
As you can see I am not using the same
From: "Daniel_Marjamäki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 08:47:48 +0100
> So you mean that in this particular case it's faster with a handcoded
> comparison than memcmp? Because both key1 and key2 are located at
> word-aligned addresses?
> That's fascinating.
Essentially, yes.
From: Daniel_Marjamäki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 08:47:48 +0100
So you mean that in this particular case it's faster with a handcoded
comparison than memcmp? Because both key1 and key2 are located at
word-aligned addresses?
That's fascinating.
Essentially, yes.
However, I
Hello!
I have done a little testing on my own. My results is that memcpy is
many times faster even with aligned data.
I am testing in an ordinary console program. I am including the code below.
If I'm doing something wrong, please tell me so.
As you can see I am not using the same
Hello!
So you mean that in this particular case it's faster with a handcoded
comparison than memcmp? Because both key1 and key2 are located at
word-aligned addresses?
That's fascinating.
Best regards,
Daniel
2006/12/31, David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
From: "Daniel_Marjamäki" <[EMAIL
From: "Daniel_Marjamäki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 17:37:05 +0100
> From: Daniel Marjamäki
> This has been tested by me.
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Marjamäki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Please do not do this.
memcmp() cannot assume the alignment of the source and
destination buffers and
On 31.12.2006 [17:37:05 +0100], Daniel Marjam?ki wrote:
> From: Daniel Marjamäki
> This has been tested by me.
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Marjamäki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> --- linux-2.6.20-rc2/net/core/flow.c 2006-12-27 09:59:56.0 +0100
> +++ linux/net/core/flow.c 2006-12-31
From: Daniel Marjamäki
This has been tested by me.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Marjamäki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- linux-2.6.20-rc2/net/core/flow.c2006-12-27 09:59:56.0 +0100
+++ linux/net/core/flow.c 2006-12-31 18:26:06.0 +0100
@@ -144,29 +144,16 @@ typedef u32 flow_compare_t;
From: Daniel Marjamäki
This has been tested by me.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Marjamäki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- linux-2.6.20-rc2/net/core/flow.c2006-12-27 09:59:56.0 +0100
+++ linux/net/core/flow.c 2006-12-31 18:26:06.0 +0100
@@ -144,29 +144,16 @@ typedef u32 flow_compare_t;
On 31.12.2006 [17:37:05 +0100], Daniel Marjam?ki wrote:
From: Daniel Marjamäki
This has been tested by me.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Marjamäki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- linux-2.6.20-rc2/net/core/flow.c 2006-12-27 09:59:56.0 +0100
+++ linux/net/core/flow.c 2006-12-31 18:26:06.0
Hello!
So you mean that in this particular case it's faster with a handcoded
comparison than memcmp? Because both key1 and key2 are located at
word-aligned addresses?
That's fascinating.
Best regards,
Daniel
2006/12/31, David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
From: Daniel_Marjamäki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
13 matches
Mail list logo