Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ames!ptsfa!ihnp4!homxb!gemini
From: gemini@homxb.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: String Processing Instruction
Message-ID: <182@homxb.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 29-Mar-87 01:27:55 EST
Article-I.D.: homxb.182
Posted: Sun Mar 29 01:27:55 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 29-Mar-87 17:19:11 EST
References: <15292@amdcad.UUCP> <978@ames.UUCP> <909@spar.SPAR.SLB.COM> <236@winchester.mips.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: PC Research, Inc.
Lines: 23
Summary: Dhrystone in C != ADA

I got curious myself, and profiled "ls", "awk", "cpp", "lln", and
several SGS's and local applications programs for str* and mem* usage.
In most cases, the str* numbers were in the 0-3% range.  Diff didn't
use strcat/cpy/cmp at all, though it obviously does lots of string work.
But I found heavy usage of the mem* routines in many of the newer programs
I tried.  7-20% was the range!

If the C convention for strings had been length oriented, I suspect that
Dhrystone would come out with a better approximation of reality.  This
would be due to the heavier usage of mem*-like routines for moving and
comparing the strings.

In believe that Dhrystone would have been better off doing 'stringy' things
with some custom code.  I'm certain that lots of string work gets done in
the 'average' program, yet it appears that not much of it gets done using
the str* routines.  On the other hand, in my observations, I've seen lots
of novice C programmers go overboard using str*, so perhaps profiling the
(presumably) finely tuned UNIX utilities isn't showing us reality either.
It's certain that novice programmers will be sharing the machine and
their programs with me for a long time to come.

Rick Richardson, PC Research, Inc: (201) 922-1134  ..!ihnp4!castor!pcrat!rick
	         when at AT&T-CPL: (201) 834-1378  ..!ihnp4!castor!polux!rer