On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:24 AM, Mikhail T. <mi+t...@aldan.algebra.com> wrote: > > Is there really a gain in inc- and decrementing this way? Would not it be > easier to read with the explicit increments -- and, incidentally, no > decrements at all?
No measured difference in my tests, I guess it depends on likelyhood to fail/succeed early in the string or not. >> >> We don't care about the whole process time and other counters. > > That's certainly true. But, then, why bother with building time-counter into > the test at all -- instead of simply relying on time(1)? That's the purpose of newtest.c (vs Christophe's test.c): try both... > > But something is still not right -- the result (for either of the methods) > can depend on the number of iterations (!!): That's expected (or at least no cared about in this test case). We simply want res to not be optimized out, so print it before leaving, without any particular relevance for its value (string.h and optimized versions should return the same res with the same args, ascii strings only, though).
