Re: Performance optimization - svn_stringbuf_appendbyte()

2010-10-24 Thread Stefan Fuhrmann
On 11.10.2010 17:07, Julian Foad wrote: On Sun, 2010-10-10, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: On 07.10.2010 16:07, Julian Foad wrote: New Revision: 997203 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=997203&view=rev Log: Merge r985037, r985046, r995507 and r995603 from the performance branch. These changes int

Re: Performance optimization - svn_stringbuf_appendbyte()

2010-10-11 Thread Julian Foad
On Sun, 2010-10-10, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: > On 07.10.2010 16:07, Julian Foad wrote: > >> New Revision: 997203 > >> > >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=997203&view=rev > >> Log: > >> Merge r985037, r985046, r995507 and r995603 from the performance branch. > >> > >> These changes introduce th

Re: Performance optimization - svn_stringbuf_appendbyte()

2010-10-10 Thread Stefan Fuhrmann
On 07.10.2010 16:07, Julian Foad wrote: New Revision: 997203 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=997203&view=rev Log: Merge r985037, r985046, r995507 and r995603 from the performance branch. These changes introduce the svn_stringbuf_appendbyte() function, which has significantly less overhe

Re: Performance optimization - svn_stringbuf_appendbyte()

2010-10-07 Thread Philip Martin
Julian Foad writes: > This tells me that the hand-optimization is actually harmful and the > compiler does a 10% better job by itself. > > Have I made a mistake? > > What are the results for your system? > > (I'm using GCC 4.4.1 on an Intel Centrino laptop CPU.) On my system (Intel Core 2 Duo, G

Re: Performance optimization - svn_stringbuf_appendbyte()

2010-10-07 Thread Julian Foad
> New Revision: 997203 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=997203&view=rev > Log: > Merge r985037, r985046, r995507 and r995603 from the performance branch. > > These changes introduce the svn_stringbuf_appendbyte() function, which has > significantly less overhead than svn_stringbuf_append