Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2000, Paul Jarc wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, no. You're not looking at *the* putc macro; you're looking at
> > *a* putc macro. One implementation need not resemble another at all
>
> However, since I'm using *MY* implementation, I'm going to look at *MY*
> macros, thankyouverymuch.
[various stupidity snipped]
Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee. Benchmarking *YOUR* macros
is pointless, when you're talking about the performance of *MY*
program. Why don't you benchmark my program, stupid?
``I do not need to benchmark obviously inefficient code just to prove that
it's inefficient.'' Who needs to profile, when Sam can calculate runtime
profiles without even glancing at the code? Just tell Sam an anecdote
about your program, and he'll give you a thumbs up or down. Jackass.
> I wonder how many times I have to report the same results (twice
> apparently isn't enough) before everyone finds something else to do,
> besides splitting hairs.
Okay, consider your results. One program writes a byte repeatedly, and
the other immediately segfaults. What was that supposed to tell us
about safecat? Considering your utterly inept approach to profiling,
it certainly appears you don't do it that often.
I'll repeat, for the last time: safecat, on my system at least, runs
within a factor of two of /bin/cat.
Len.
--
You're repeating the same old ``forks are bad and execs are
disastrous'' litany without _profiling_ where your time is actually
going.
-- Dan Bernstein
