Re: Count string in string with loop increase 2, why is this not faster?

Path	csiph.com!aioe.org!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From	Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: Count string in string with loop increase 2, why is this not faster?
Date	Tue, 06 Feb 2018 12:35:22 -0800
Organization	None to speak of
Lines	33
Message-ID	<lnh8qt26wl.fsf@kst-u.example.com> (permalink)
References	<ddaa3397-15fc-499c-baad-0b15ee7ae61d@googlegroups.com> <87607e2tox.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <AuldC.4664$vP3.3700@fx15.iad> <144f383b-5aa9-43c5-b844-ef266e439892@googlegroups.com> <bumdC.6317$d03.5530@fx37.iad> <a2fef07c-3140-4cb3-a064-88bca05e8b6d@googlegroups.com> <UQsdC.7853$9%2.6576@fx36.iad> <lna7wp4iq9.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <91c1bf4a-0096-4d2f-8495-639c96b86797@googlegroups.com> <CcIdC.3336$Wm5.2703@fx14.iad> <f3d1ba1f-f853-4e1a-9174-e2bce8342c13@googlegroups.com> <ssJdC.10452$RQ3.4320@fx02.iad> <fb43d0c4-bf8f-4d68-85fc-61fe90354de1@googlegroups.com> <uhLdC.698929$yM6.361778@fx26.am4> <lnlgg82vw2.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <NOMdC.1566374$OX.1165063@fx47.am4> <p59hg2$m76$1@dont-email.me> <lnd11j2wxb.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <p5bt9u$61s$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version	1.0
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info	reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="9bf0f7c9b2913a6f5e088f82eff19e7d"; logging-data="16975"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18qnwVB05nc1UqVspoFhcA5"
User-Agent	Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock	sha1:7aIlZFrXdXp7FCD7tf8woWXJjUY= sha1:PW5mey+scYzoOcEtH5iSRiiNmKw=
Xref	csiph.com comp.lang.c:126342

Show key headers only | View raw

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> On 05/02/18 18:01, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>> [...]
>>> The whole concept of a "char" being signed or unsigned is more than a
>>> little odd to me - it is, I think, a historical accident.
>> [...]
>> 
>> What would be the alternative?  If char is an integer type it has to be
>> either signed or unsigned (unless you say that operations where it
>> matters have undefined behavior).
>
> The alternative would be for it not to be an integer type at all - and
> require explicit functions for conversion back and forth with integers.
>  That is what other languages do.

For example, in Pascal "Char" is a distinct type.  In Ada "Character" is
an enumeration type (Ada allows character constants like 'x' as
enumerators).  In both languages, conversions between characters and
integers are possible, but are never implicit, and there is no
arithmetic on characters (though comparisons like ('0' < '1') are
allowed).

I tend to agree that conflating characters, bytes, and narrow integers
was a bad idea, but C is quite thoroughly stuck with that decision.

[...]

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

Thread

csiph-web