From:	larstr AT colargol DOT idb DOT hist DOT no (Lars Troen)
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: memcpy(); is there something faster?
Date:	23 Feb 1997 18:28:07 GMT
Organization:	UNINETT news service
Lines:	25
Message-ID:	<5eq27n$uaf$1@doffen.uninett.no>
References:	<59g08k$758_001 AT cpe DOT Maroochydore DOT aone DOT net DOT au> <32be2c51 DOT 87056746 AT nntp DOT southeast DOT net>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	colargol.idb.hist.no
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

Murray Stokely (murray AT southeast DOT net) wrote:
: 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! ;-)


Actually... The fpu memcpy and MMX memcpy which both copy 8 bytes at a time
are basically the same. They're both using the same processor and fpu stack.

hmm.. gotta learn djgpp style asm so I can port it to djgpp..

 

- Raw text -