Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #19576

Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient

Show all headers | View raw

On 04/12/2012 12:01 PM, John Reye wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> recently I learned that various "standard C library" functions have
> deficiencies in terms of high performance.

The only thing you've learned from recent threads in this forum is that
some C standard library functions are specified by the standard to have
less than ideal interfaces. That's not exactly an earth-shattering piece
of news - it's true of almost every library. If you've learned of
significant (or even insignificant but measurable) performance problems
with these functions, you learned of it in some other context.

It's meaningless to talk about the performance of *the* C standard
library. There's no single C standard library - just a standard which
documents what the library does and how to use it, and many different
implementations of that library. Performance is meaningful only when you
specify a particular implementation of that library. Which particular
implementation have you seen bad performance figures for? What were
those figures?

...
> Are these deficiencies _only_ string-related?

No - there are lots of other kinds of minor problems with the C standard
library.

> Is there no good library which I can use for optimal computing?

I think that you can safely assume that no library you've ever heard of,
and no library that you ever will hear of, is perfectly optimal. There's
lots of good sub-optimal libraries out there, including various
implementations of the C standard library.

> Because if I use the "standard C library" I'll end up _not_ using many
> of it's routines.

Most people use only a small portion of the C standard library; there's
nothing unusual about that. I think that what you mean is something
different - you plan on refusing to use many C standard library
functions that could be useful, because you consider them less than optimal.

> Surely there must be a good library somewhere, or do all C programmers
> really carry their own routines with them?

I almost never write my own routines for any purpose for which a C
standard library routine can be made to serve, even if the library
routine is a less-than perfect fit to my desires. The main exception is
that I will often manually inline code that is roughly equivalent to
some of the standard str*() and mem*() functions, especially strtok().
For the other str*() and mem*() functions, I'll usually inline the code
only if I need a pointer to the end of the memory that was processed,
something that the standard library functions don't provide. The
in-lining is generally trivial for most of those functions.

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient John Reye <jononanon@googlemail.com> - 2012-04-12 09:01 -0700
  Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient John Reye <jononanon@googlemail.com> - 2012-04-12 09:05 -0700
    Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2012-04-12 09:38 -0700
      Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient John Reye <jononanon@googlemail.com> - 2012-04-12 11:32 -0700
        Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-04-12 14:41 -0400
          Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2012-04-12 18:51 +0000
            Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com - 2012-04-13 03:46 -0700
              Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2012-04-13 14:51 +0000
            Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-04-13 12:38 -0400
              Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-04-15 19:47 +0300
  Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2012-04-12 09:09 -0700
    Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient John Reye <jononanon@googlemail.com> - 2012-04-12 11:13 -0700
      Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2012-04-12 18:20 -0700
  Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-04-12 18:13 +0200
    Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-04-12 12:47 -0400
    Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient John Reye <jononanon@googlemail.com> - 2012-04-12 11:22 -0700
      Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-04-13 22:37 +0200
        Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-04-15 20:15 +0300
          Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-04-15 23:30 +0200
  Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2012-04-12 09:20 -0700
  Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2012-04-12 18:34 +0200
    Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-04-12 18:00 +0000
      Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com - 2012-04-13 03:50 -0700
    Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient John Reye <jononanon@googlemail.com> - 2012-04-12 11:24 -0700
      Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-04-12 13:08 -0700
  Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-04-12 12:50 -0400
    Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient John Reye <jononanon@googlemail.com> - 2012-04-12 11:30 -0700
      Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-04-12 15:55 -0400
  Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2012-04-12 11:41 -0700
    Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2012-04-12 19:08 +0000
  Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-04-12 21:07 +0100
    Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-04-12 20:35 -0400
      Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-04-13 11:38 +0100
        Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-04-13 09:52 -0400
          Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-04-13 17:56 +0100
      Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-04-13 12:56 -0400
        Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-04-13 14:48 -0400
          Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-04-14 07:22 -0700
  Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2012-04-12 21:23 -0400
    Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Quentin Pope <qp19433@hotmail.NOSPAM.com> - 2012-04-13 16:52 +0000
  Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-04-13 23:24 +0200

csiph-web