Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date:	Mon, 7 May 2001 15:43:51 -0400
From:	Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To:	cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: 1.3.1 *is* slower
Message-ID:	<20010507154351.D29090@redhat.com>
Reply-To:	cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<20010427160641 DOT A11039 AT redhat DOT com> <3AF6E177 DOT 42A39A64 AT yahoo DOT com>
Mime-Version:	1.0
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.3.11i
In-Reply-To:	<3AF6E177.42A39A64@yahoo.com>; from earnie_boyd@yahoo.com on Mon, May 07, 2001 at 01:55:03PM -0400

On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 01:55:03PM -0400, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> 
>> It is true that 1.3.1 is slower than 1.1.8.  I benchmarked it on my NT 2K
>> dual processor 300MHZ system.
>> 
>> A config.status --recheck in my gdb build directory takes a minute 1 second
>> with 1.3.1, 52 seconds with 1.1.8, and 48 seconds with 1.1.5.
>> 
>> Not a very encouraging trend.
>> 
>> Anybody have any ideas?  This is usually a sign of an extra disk open somewhere
>> but I don't see anything obvious.
>> 
>
>Hey Chris, what do your timings give you now?  Just curious if my
>strrchr patch improved it.

As I mentioned, I'm working on an asm version of strrchr to complement the asm version
of strchr.  The timings show something like a 5 - 6% improvement with the asm version.
I haven't tried with the newlib version.

I'm very glad that you found this bottleneck.

cgf

- Raw text -