[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: started applying Marcus' patch

From: Karl Fogel <kfogel_at_newton.ch.collab.net>
Date: 2002-07-18 16:07:07 CEST

Marcus Comstedt <marcus@mc.pp.se> writes:
> So, where does this buy you performance? The only CPU I can think of
> where the bit test would be faster is 6502, where the mere act of
> LDA:ing somthing would set the N flag in the status register to the
> eight bit of the loaded value. On a RISC cpu, I expect the bit test
> to be same speed or slower compared to an arithmetic comparison.
> (You _could_ make it one cycle faster on the Hitachi SH-4 by removing
> the cast to unsigned char *, since unsignedness is not required for
> the bit test to work, and reading unsigned chars is one cycle slower
> than reading signed chars on that CPU.)

My mother raised me to always treat a bit test as faster than an
arithmetic operation.

Are you saying my mother is *wrong*???


> C99 guarantees that char is _at least_ eight-bits. It can be 4711
> bits without breaking the standard though. In practice, not much of a
> problem though. Some PDPs have 9 bit chars, I think. But I don't
> expect to find chars any other size than 8 anywhere where svn will
> run.

I think Brane's solution (to use the apr_isascii and isctrl tests) is

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Jul 18 16:19:17 2002

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.