Xref:	news2.mv.net comp.os.msdos.djgpp:5190
From:	Joern Sierwald <Sierwald AT tu-harburg DOT d400 DOT de>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: Speed optimization: memcpy() or for loop ?? ** Some actual test results **
Date:	Thu, 20 Jun 1996 10:24:17 +0200
Organization:	Technische Universitaet Hamburg-harburg
Lines:	52
Message-ID:	<31C90AB1.72EF@tu-harburg.d400.de>
References:	<4pmlrp$p7u AT crc-news DOT doc DOT ca> <31C2577D DOT 22FD99BD AT alcyone DOT com> <4q679q$4op AT snlsu1> <4q9k75$bgg AT crc-news DOT doc DOT ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	hp03.rz.tu-harburg.de
Mime-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

Richard Young wrote:
> 
> > Richard Young wrote:
> > > A question for the optimization experts:
> > > For moving data, is it faster to use
> > >
> > > a) memcpy(x,y,n*sizeof(x[0]))
> > > or
> > > b) for (i = 0; i < n; i++) x[i] = y[i];
> > >
> > > or are they basically the same speed.
> 
> Well, I wrote a test program to test several data move options:
> 
> 1) memcpy()
> 2) an index based for loop
> 3) a ptr based for loop
> 
> The results are:  NO DIFFERENCE.
> 
> On my 120 MHz DEC Pentium executing a data move of 100000 floats 2000 times
> took roughly 45 seconds for all options.
> 
> I'm a little surprised that memcpy() wasn't faster.  Am I getting an inlined
> "C" version instead of an assembly coded library function.
> 
 
Not surprising. You're measuring the memory speed of your 
computer. The copy loop is in the 1 Level Cache. In the days of
the 80286 (no Cache) a movsw was faster than a loop. Now it doesn't
matter.

Joern
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
...
..
..
..

..
..

- Raw text -