Path: utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!scs!spl1!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!bu-cs!dartvax!elea
From: earleh@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Earle R. Horton)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: BlockMove efficiency
Message-ID: <8818@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU>
Date: 7 Jun 88 20:14:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: dartvax.8818
References: <7212@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <8796@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> <21737@think.UUCP>
Sender: news@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU
Reply-To: earleh@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Earle R. Horton)
Distribution: comp
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Lines: 19

In article <21737@think.UUCP> ephraim@vidar.think.com.UUCP 
	(ephraim vishniac) writes:
>In article <8796@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> earleh@eleazar.dartmouth.edu 
	(Earle R. Horton) writes:
[Incorrect statements by me.]
...
>What's the source of your claim?

I claim nearsightedness and temporary insanity in my analysis of BlockMove().
My "mbox" overfloweth.

I still maintain, however, that if you have "move"s in your program and you
have a real concern as to the speed, you will have to TIME IT to find the
absolute best method.  Also, the best method probably depends heavily on the
number of bytes to be moved.  If the number of bytes varies, there may well
be no best choice.

*********************************************************************
*Earle R. Horton, H.B. 8000, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755   *
*********************************************************************