On 27 Sep 2001, Joe Schaefer wrote:
[beginners lists]
[2]: IIRC, they are at
http://learn.perl.org/
yup, thousands of subscribers. Incredibly amounts of (helpful)
mails.
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
- ask
ps. we had some network trouble around noon Thursday (PST) on
-Original Message-
From: Doug MacEachern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
i'm guessing part of the difference in your code is due to
fprintf having
a pre-allocated buffer, whereas the SV's SvPVX has not been
pre-allocated
and gets realloc-ed each time you call sv_catpv. have a look
Matt Sergeant [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
-Original Message-
From: Doug MacEachern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
i'm guessing part of the difference in your code is due to
fprintf having a pre-allocated buffer, whereas the SV's SvPVX
has not been pre-allocated and gets
Robin Berjon thought I should post this as a heads-up to anyone thinking
what I thought: XS or pure perl code will always be faster than backticks
or system() calls.
Wrong.
I spent some time converting some of our backtick programs to XS code here,
and the result was absolutely zero difference
-Original Message-
From: Doug MacEachern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Wed, 26 Sep 2001, Matt Sergeant wrote:
Robin Berjon thought I should post this as a heads-up to
anyone thinking
what I thought: XS or pure perl code will always be faster
than backticks
or system()
On Wed, 26 Sep 2001, Matt Sergeant wrote:
Robin Berjon thought I should post this as a heads-up to anyone thinking
what I thought: XS or pure perl code will always be faster than backticks
or system() calls.
Wrong.
matt your benchmark is severly flawed. for starters, your xs and
external
On Wed, 26 Sep 2001, Matt Sergeant wrote:
As does backticks, surely? If you can tell me a way to make the code faster,
damn I'll do it as we have a *lot* of emails to process :-)
maybe, i don't know in what way your code uses sv_catpv.
and who knows what else.
Nothing else. I detailed
