Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!apple!rutgers!noao!asuvax!stjhmc!p11.f15.n114.z1.fidonet.org!jim.nutt From: jim.nutt@p11.f15.n114.z1.fidonet.org (jim nutt) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Explanation, please! Message-ID: <485.231DAAC3@stjhmc.fidonet.org> Date: 1 Sep 88 14:49:21 GMT Sender: ufgate@stjhmc.fidonet.org (newsout1.19) Organization: FidoNet node 1:114/15.11 - St Joes Hospi, Phoenix AZ Lines: 24 -> 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. memcpy() IS in the ansi standard library, along with a similar function called memmove(). admittedly, the standard is not finalized yet but it is scheduled to be so soon. i would think that it would behoove compiler vendors to begin tracking the standard now if they aren't already... jim nutt 'the computer handyman' -- St. Joseph's Hospital/Medical Center - Usenet <=> FidoNet Gateway Uucp: ...ncar!noao!asuvax!stjhmc!15.11!jim.nutt Internet: jim.nutt@p11.f15.n114.z1.fidonet.org