"Richard L. Hamilton" <rlha...@smart.net> wrote:
> Right - I can't see it mattering either except when accessing
> memory-mapped hardware (that had control registers rather than actual
> memory like say video memory), which I have difficulty imagining it being
> useful to use memchr() against anyway. In fact, if memory accesses
> all actually take place in terms of whole words (given the bus width,
> and with any unwanted portion perhaps just tossed), I'm not sure it
> would be detectably different even then.
See the example I did give in a previous mail.
> As I recall, it was intentional to use memchr() precisely because it would
> give strnlen() the benefit of the optimizations already applied to memchr(),
> without creating more assembler code to maintain.
>
> And to top it all off, I just found an email from Jörg dated 5 October 2006
> _recommending_ the use of memchr() to implement strnlen(). :-)
Nobody is free of mistakes, but I would guess that in 2006 (when strnlen()
AFAIK was not yet part of the POSIX standard) I could not know that the later
standard would disallow such optimizations.
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
j...@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog:
http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-code mailing list
opensolaris-code@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
