* André Malo wrote:
> Hmm, so now we can just rename apr_streq.c to apr_strcaseeq.c (dropping the
> simple eq functions), include the case tables only there (regarding to the
> other issue). The macros could stay in apr_lib.h (plus the apr_streq
> macros?), since one has to link against the apr an
Dear Apache Portable Runtime Development Team,
(http://apr.apache.org/)
Hello,
I am now in the process of preparing the first all-Apache-wide newsletter.
http://www.apache.org/newsletter/
'The Apache Newsletter Issue 1' ... ASF-wide-newsletter of July 2003,
which will be published in the middl
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
* Joe Orton wrote:
> That benchmark is rigged :) It only compares against the strcmp in
> libc.so due to the missing #include . I'd always bet on the
> inline asm over C code...
oh man, I'm dumb ;-)
Thanks.
> $ gcc -O2 -DINLINE -o streq streq.c && ./streq
> iterations: 10
>
> [01/05] s
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 02:37:23PM +0200, André Malo wrote:
> * Joe Orton wrote:
>
> > I understand the need for a strcasecmp replacement, but are the
> > strcmp/!strcmp replacements just for consistency? On some platforms
> > strcmp is an optimised asm inline so unless there's a good reason to
>
* Joe Orton wrote:
> I understand the need for a strcasecmp replacement, but are the
> strcmp/!strcmp replacements just for consistency? On some platforms
> strcmp is an optimised asm inline so unless there's a good reason to
> tempt people away from strcmp I'd leave apr_streq/strneq out.
Attache
* Joe Orton wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 01:17:15AM +0200, André Malo wrote:
>> Well, I've started with a patch (attached). It works fine for me, but I'm
>> not sure with the naming at all. Any comments?
>
> I understand the need for a strcasecmp replacement, but are the
> strcmp/!strcmp repl
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 01:17:15AM +0200, André Malo wrote:
> Well, I've started with a patch (attached). It works fine for me, but I'm not
> sure with the naming at all. Any comments?
I understand the need for a strcasecmp replacement, but are the
strcmp/!strcmp replacements just for consistency?