Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient |
| Date | 2012-04-14 07:22 -0700 |
| Organization | http://groups.google.com |
| Message-ID | <20006532.1104.1334413327998.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbdn7> (permalink) |
| References | <d965f1e6-f918-4c5b-88f8-b5c09644faef@f5g2000vby.googlegroups.com> <jm7cmf$78f$1@dont-email.me> <jm7sc1$18n$1@dont-email.me> <9oydnefH64E4xxXSnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@bestweb.net> <4F8874FE.4060400@verizon.net> |
בתאריך יום שישי, 13 באפריל 2012 19:48:30 UTC+1, מאת James Kuyper: > > If a two-pass implementation turns out to be faster than the one-pass > solution I wrote, I can hope that a sufficiently sophisticated compiler > will convert my one-pass C code into machine code equivalent to a > two-pass implementation. I'm not going to lose any sleep over the > possibility that it won't. If I need more speed, and can afford to loose > portability, I'll use assembly language rather than trying to figure out > how to trick a particular C compiler into generating the assembly > language I want it to generate. > You look at the bottlneck, which is unlikely to be the string concatenation, but might be. You know that. But it's better to remove the bottleneck in C rather than assembly if you can. That way it's more likely that a maintainer can read your code. And ypu can port it much more easily. On the machine you port to the optimal two-pass solution might well be pessimal, but in ten years it might be a 20Ghz job available for five dollars, so no-one will care.
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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