From: "Daniel_Marjamäki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 10:16:02 +0100
> I have done a little testing on my own. My results is that memcpy is
> many times faster even with aligned data.
Your test program doesn't make any measurements, from where did
you get these "results"?
Also, your
Hello!
I have done a little testing on my own. My results is that memcpy is
many times faster even with aligned data.
I am testing in an ordinary console program. I am including the code below.
If I'm doing something wrong, please tell me so.
As you can see I am not using the same datadeclarati
From: "Daniel_Marjamäki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 08:47:48 +0100
> So you mean that in this particular case it's faster with a handcoded
> comparison than memcmp? Because both key1 and key2 are located at
> word-aligned addresses?
> That's fascinating.
Essentially, yes.
However,
Hello!
So you mean that in this particular case it's faster with a handcoded
comparison than memcmp? Because both key1 and key2 are located at
word-aligned addresses?
That's fascinating.
Best regards,
Daniel
2006/12/31, David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
From: "Daniel_Marjamäki" <[EMAIL PROTECT
From: "Daniel_Marjamäki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 17:37:05 +0100
> From: Daniel Marjamäki
> This has been tested by me.
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Marjamäki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Please do not do this.
memcmp() cannot assume the alignment of the source and
destination buffers and th
On 31.12.2006 [17:37:05 +0100], Daniel Marjam?ki wrote:
> From: Daniel Marjamäki
> This has been tested by me.
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Marjamäki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> --- linux-2.6.20-rc2/net/core/flow.c 2006-12-27 09:59:56.0 +0100
> +++ linux/net/core/flow.c 2006-12-31 18:26:06.00
From: Daniel Marjamäki
This has been tested by me.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Marjamäki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- linux-2.6.20-rc2/net/core/flow.c2006-12-27 09:59:56.0 +0100
+++ linux/net/core/flow.c 2006-12-31 18:26:06.0 +0100
@@ -144,29 +144,16 @@ typedef u32 flow_compare_t;
