From: Paul Shirley <Paul AT foobar DOT co DOT uk DOT chocolat>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: memcpy(); is there something faster?
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 18:28:19 +0000
Organization: wot? me?
Lines: 12
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <1TooqFADDCwyEw2D@chocolat.foobar.co.uk>
References: <m0vc9ep-000S1pC AT natacha DOT inti DOT edu DOT ar>
Reply-To: Paul Shirley <junk AT defeating DOT email DOT address>
NNTP-Posting-Host: chocolat.foobar.co.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

In article <m0vc9ep-000S1pC AT natacha DOT inti DOT edu DOT ar>, "Salvador Eduardo
Tropea (SET)" <salvador AT natacha DOT inti DOT edu DOT ar> writes
>Depends on the CPU, for 486 memcpy is very very fast (copies double 
>words even if the data isn't aligned), may be in a Pentium simple 
>instructions (not rep movXX) can be executed faster, but if the speed 
>of memcpy isn't enough for you think about buying a faster machine.

On a P5 its important that the destination is DWORD aligned, the source
is less important.

---
Paul Shirley: shuffle chocolat before foobar for my real email address