[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Search] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [FWP] Quick hack for common length

To: schwern@pobox.com
Subject: Re: [FWP] Quick hack for common length
From: Kingpin <mthurn@copper.dulles.tasc.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 101 23:20:47 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: jeffp@crusoe.net (Jeff 'japhy' Pinyan), clintp@geeksalad.org (Clinton A. Pierce), fwp@technofile.org
Delivered-To: irons-bumppo:net-mpfwp@bumppo.net
In-Reply-To: <20010625203006.P13819@blackrider> from "Michael G Schwern" at Jun 25, 2001 08:30:06 PM

> Doesn't seem to run any faster.

Looks like the C is about 7 times faster to me

>   Inline_C:  ... @ 347539.37/s (n=1094749)
>      Japhy:  ... @  49496.58/s (n= 159379)
>       Perl:  ... @  50580.56/s (n= 163881)
                     ^^^^^^^^^
A lot more iterations per second!!!

Or am I misreading your numbers?

==== Want to unsubscribe from Fun With Perl?  Well, if you insist...
==== Send email to <fwp-request@technofile.org> with message _body_
====   unsubscribe

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [FWP] Quick hack for common length
  - From: Michael G Schwern <schwern@pobox.com>

References:
- Re: [FWP] Quick hack for common length
  - From: Michael G Schwern <schwern@pobox.com>

Prev by Date: Re: [FWP] Quick hack for common length
Next by Date: Re: [FWP] Quick hack for common length
Prev by thread: Re: [FWP] Quick hack for common length
Next by thread: Re: [FWP] Quick hack for common length
Navigation: Date Index | Thread Index | Search | Other lists at bumppo.net