On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 03:20:55PM +0200, Martin Mares wrote: > Hello! > > > Fairly, I once had the same idea for Quagga but found all those extra tests > > and > > additions were much slower(I benched it). Just look at the number of extra > > ops one > > has to do in the current code. > > If you want to do it faster you have to go ASM. It would be easy to > > add support for that too but it can wait. > > My primary reaction was "If something isn't broken, don't fix it." I.e., > unless you have good reasons for rewriting a piece of code, don't do that. > > Your version is more readable and I would be in favour of accepting it, > but I would still like to see at least a very simple benchmark which shows > that it is not significantly slower.
I was curious enough to do some benchmarks and got these results: Intel Atom: suggested code ~ 1.2* faster AMD Geode: no diference MIPS ADM5120: old code ~ 1.2* faster So there isn't really difference in performance of both implementations. Even on slow embedded AMD Geode CPU, it gives ~ 180 MB/s. -- Elen sila lumenn' omentielvo Ondrej 'SanTiago' Zajicek (email: santi...@crfreenet.org) OpenPGP encrypted e-mails preferred (KeyID 0x11DEADC3, wwwkeys.pgp.net) "To err is human -- to blame it on a computer is even more so."
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
