Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucsd!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!news.funet.fi!tukki.jyu.fi!jyu.fi!otto
From: otto@tukki.jyu.fi (Otto J. Makela)
Newsgroups: alt.sources
Subject: Re: Fast strcmp() wanted.
Message-ID: <OTTO.90Sep27145643@tukki.jyu.fi>
Date: 27 Sep 90 12:56:43 GMT
References: <12145@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> <1646@cherry.edc.UUCP>
Sender: news@tukki.jyu.fi (News articles)
Organization: Turing Police, Criminal AI section
Lines: 28
In-Reply-To: fraser@edc.UUCP's message of 26 Sep 90 16:26:26 GMT

In article <1646@cherry.edc.UUCP> fraser@edc.UUCP (Fraser Orr) writes:
   In article <12145@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> larocque@jupiter.crd.ge.com (David M. LaRocque) writes:
   >After I profiled my C program I discovered that the function
   >strcmp() takes one third of my program's CPU time.  I was hoping
   >someone may have written their own version of strcmp() that
   >outperforms the library's function.

   One quick dirty thing I did once was to change
	   if (strcmp (a,b)==0)
   to
	   if (*a==*b && (strcmp(a.b)==0))

   I seem to remember a remarkable performance improvement, like about 5
   times faster.  Probably due to the fact that the program mainly did
   strcmp and the strcmp was pretty bad.

This should obviously be:
	if(*a==*b && (strcmp(a,b)==0))
(just in case...)

I'd believe if your compiler is really brain-damaged, this could also help
a teeny weeny bit:
	if(*a==*b && (!strcmp(a,b)))
--
   /* * * Otto J. Makela <otto@jyu.fi> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */
  /* Phone: +358 41 613 847, BBS: +358 41 211 562 (CCITT, Bell 24/12/300) */
 /* Mail: Kauppakatu 1 B 18, SF-40100 Jyvaskyla, Finland, EUROPE         */
/* * * Computers Rule 01001111 01001011 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */