Hi Matt,
I ran you version but it looked little bit slower (I checked it with
callgrind). So I kept the current CVS version. Anyway, it is not a big
problem to change it after RC.
Thanks. Dmitry.
Matt Wilmas wrote:
Hi Dmitry,
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dmitry Stogov"
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009
Hi Matt,
Matt Wilmas wrote:
Hi again Dmitry,
Just wanted to say that I think I can make your code a bit smaller
after looking at it closer.
It would be great, but keep in mind that performance is more important.
I know. :-)
Don't quite have enough time to modify and verify it now, but I'll
be back later (around the usual time) to let you know either way. :-)
I'm waiting for your changes.
No patch, but here's the straight code:
http://realplain.com/php/handle_numeric.txt
With your benchmark script, if I changed one of the keys, it would
sometimes radically affect the time of another key value, hmm. But in
my own tests, this was always faster. Some notes:
I've never understood why the terminating null check is there... I
don't see why it would be missing if there aren't other problems in
code. A place for UNEXPECTED()?
I removed the special handling of "0" and it's faster.
(Oh no, I see you just commited your code right now, LOL. Sorry I
didn't send this sooner. :-/)
For the leading 0 check, I changed it back to "length > 2" again instead
of the "end - tmp != 1" calculation.
I used ++tmp instead of 2 *tmp++ because I assume having the increment
in just one place creates less instructions. ;-) (For size, not speed.)
Finally, in the Unicode version (copied, untested), I'm using the 0x
values that were there originally instead of '0' char values...
Thanks. Dmitry.
Again, sorry I was about 20 minutes late with this! :-(
- Matt
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
