matching assembly speed for small string comparison

[qak]

It wasn't my idea, it came from Ben Bacarisse in a direct
response to your original posting. You haven't been paying
attention. Please add "pay attention when you read" to
the list of development practices you should be following.

My thanks to Ben Bacarisse then.
Sorry, sir. I don't read english so good and as soon as I see something
like 'Life is too short to ...' or 'Op. is the root...' I skip the rest.

 

[Angel]

My thanks to Ben Bacarisse then.
Sorry, sir. I don't read english so good and as soon as I see something
like 'Life is too short to ...' or 'Op. is the root...' I skip the rest.

He was basically asking why you are bothering with optimalizations that
are really not worth the time and trouble. Unless you are writing code
that has critical time requirements, it's better to just stick with the
standard library functions and let the compiler optimize things for you.

 

[Keith Thompson]

He was basically asking why you are bothering with optimalizations that
are really not worth the time and trouble. Unless you are writing code
that has critical time requirements, it's better to just stick with the
standard library functions and let the compiler optimize things for you.

It's "optimizations", not "optimalizations". (I don't usually point out
spelling errors, but you're addressing someone whose first language
apparently isn't English.)

 

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

(snip)

He was basically asking why you are bothering with optimalizations that
are really not worth the time and trouble. Unless you are writing code
that has critical time requirements, it's better to just stick with the
standard library functions and let the compiler optimize things for you.

An important point being that the compiler often does optimize them.

Not just call a high-overhead function, many generate inline code.
Exactly how optimal that inline code is, depends on the compiler.
(And some probably still call a C function.)

-- glen

 

[Angel]

It's "optimizations", not "optimalizations". (I don't usually point out
spelling errors, but you're addressing someone whose first language
apparently isn't English.)

Mine isn't, either.

 

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

(snip)

It's "optimizations", not "optimalizations". (I don't usually point out
spelling errors, but you're addressing someone whose first language
apparently isn't English.)

I noticed, but, as with a previous discussion, didn't know if that
was the right term in England English.


-- glen

 

[Keith Thompson]

I noticed, but, as with a previous discussion, didn't know if that
was the right term in England English.

It's "optimizations" in US English, "optimisations" in UK English.

(Let's not have a debate about which one is better.)

 

[Ben Bacarisse]

It's "optimizations" in US English, "optimisations" in UK English.

I think it's more accurate to say that it's both in UK English. If
there is any difference it seems to be the 's' form is preferred in more
recent writing (but that's not an expert opinion).

<snip>