On 2008-04-18, Bob Greschke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, in playing around with your suggestion and Grant's code I've
> found that the struct stuff is WAY slower than doing something like this
>
> Value = (ord(Buf[s])*65536)+(ord(Buf[s+1])*256)+ord(Buf[s+2])
> if Value >= 0x800000:
> Value -= 0x1000000
>
> This is almost twice as fast just sitting here grinding through a few
> hundred thousand conversions (like 3sec vs. ~5secs just counting on my
> fingers - on an old Sun...it's a bit slow). Replacing *65536 with <<16
> and *256 with <<8 might even be a little faster, but it's too close to
> call without really profiling it.
I didn't know speed was important. This might be a little
faster (depending on hardware):
Value = (ord(Buf[s])<<16) | (ord(Buf[s+1])<<8) | ord(Buf[s+2])
It also makes the intention a bit more obvious (at least to me).
A decent C compiler will recognize that <<16 and <<8 are
special and just move bytes around rather than actually doing
shifts. I doubt the Python compiler does optimizations like
that, but shifts are still usually faster than multiplies
(though, again, a good compiler will recognize that multiplying
by 65536 is the same as shifting by 16 and just move bytes
around).
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! If elected, Zippy
at pledges to each and every
visi.com American a 55-year-old
houseboy...
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
