Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:12264 comp.arch:6211 Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!apple!voder!pyramid!prls!mips!earl From: earl@mips.COM (Earl Killian) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.arch Subject: Re: Explanation, please! Message-ID: <2945@wright.mips.COM> Date: 31 Aug 88 18:30:46 GMT References: <653@paris.ICS.UCI.EDU> <2877@ttrdc.UUCP> <682@proxftl.UUCP> Lines: 20 In-reply-to: bill@proxftl.UUCP's message of 31 Aug 88 08:03:58 GMT In article chuck@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Charles Simmons) writes: : I then added a piece to the program to use 'memcpy'. The results? : Duff beats a simple loop by 10%. 'memcpy' is 9 times faster than : Duff. So why do people spend so much time avoiding standard subroutines? Try some history, bud; it's good for what ails you. I doubt that memcpy even existed then; and it is *not* standard now. Perhaps it will be several years after the ANSI standard is adopted, but not till then. Perhaps a better reason: According to the author, that code was used for copying to a 16-bit IO device. It would have be illegal to use memcpy or bcopy because they would make word references to the device. -- UUCP: {ames,decwrl,prls,pyramid}!mips!earl USPS: MIPS Computer Systems, 930 Arques Ave, Sunnyvale CA, 94086