From:	murray AT southeast DOT net (Murray Stokely)
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: memcpy(); is there something faster?
Date:	Mon, 23 Dec 1996 07:52:00 GMT
Organization:	ACiD Productions
Lines:	21
Message-ID:	<32be2c51.87056746@nntp.southeast.net>
References:	<59g08k$758_001 AT cpe DOT Maroochydore DOT aone DOT net DOT au>
Reply-To:	murray AT southeast DOT net
NNTP-Posting-Host:	ts3-024.southeast.net
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

On Sat, 21 Dec 96 06:31:48 GMT, evos AT m140 DOT aone DOT net DOT au (Daniel Everton)
wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>In a program I'm currently writing I need to copy some biggish (64k) 
>shunks of memory around. I'm using memcpy() at the moment but it's not 
>quite fast enough. Is there some other function that any one can 
>suggest? The memory has all been allocated with malloc() and I'm not 
>copying between conventional memory or something like that. Any help 
>appreciated.

    Check out last month's issue of the C/C++ Users Group magazine.
It contained a memcpy() replacement for the pentium that is 15% faster
than any of the current compilers.  Also says that you will be able to
get move 30% faster than memcpy when MMX and Cyrix M2's come out.
But for 486's, and such you just have to optimize! ;-)


Murray Stokely ( murray AT southeast DOT net )
http://www.cdrom.com/pub/artpacks

- Raw text -