From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263393AbTDSOcR (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Apr 2003 10:32:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263394AbTDSOcR (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Apr 2003 10:32:17 -0400 Received: from quechua.inka.de ([193.197.184.2]:49574 "EHLO mail.inka.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263393AbTDSOcQ (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Apr 2003 10:32:16 -0400 From: Bernd Eckenfels To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [TRIVIAL] kstrdup In-Reply-To: <1050755240.3277.3.camel@dhcp22.swansea.linux.org.uk> X-Newsgroups: ka.lists.linux.kernel User-Agent: tin/1.5.17-20030301 ("Bubbles") (UNIX) (Linux/2.4.18-xfs (i686)) Message-Id: Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 16:44:12 +0200 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In article <1050755240.3277.3.camel@dhcp22.swansea.linux.org.uk> you wrote: > You are arguing over a 1 instruction, probably sub 1 clock scheduling > matter on a call which is not used on any fast or common path. If you > shaved 1 clock off the timer handling instead you'd make a lot more > difference.. i think he is arguing about the performance of strcpy vs. memcpy. Is the 1 instruction longer including the inlined code for those two? Greetings Bernd -- eckes privat - http://www.eckes.org/ Project Freefire - http://www.freefire.org/