Re: IntToStr B&V version 0.18
- From: "Sasa Zeman" <public@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 14 Sep 2005 07:12:33 -0700
Avatar Zondertau wrote:
> We can see that my benchmark performs better on highly spread
> functions, while Sasa's bench does a better job on low-spread
> functions. Sasa spread gets as high as 38,70% spread (!) on
I do also get far more better results with RDTSC with special perapration
to block outer interference.
Note also that our two benchmarks uses differently created data.
That will be handled.
> Dennis' functions seem pretty sensitive to spread. Perhaps a comparison
> between those and lower spread functions (like IntToStr_SZ_PAS_2 and
> IntToStrOuc_IA32_2 on my benchmark or IntToStr_JOH_PAS_4 on Sasa's) may
> reveal the source of our spread problem.
Main problem with Dennis' functions is probably side effect of
fragmentation, since construction result:=ch+result reallocate
memory many times.
Problem with RTL function is heap because external function call
(pop/push). External function is as well called in Dennis' functions.
- Prev by Date: Re: Fastcode - Alternative SZ IntToStrB&V v0.05
- Next by Date: Re: Fastcode - Alternative SZ IntToStrB&V v0.05
- Previous by thread: Re: IntToStr B&V version 0.18
- Next by thread: New Fastcode CompareText Function