linux <--> windows strcpy etc performance

hello, i have strange results doing some simple "benchmark" ... on my amd athlon 4800+ x2: on linux: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- cmp_i686 -------------- C strcpy: 3764.7 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 680000 clocks) our strcpy1: 2976.7 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 860000 clocks) our strcpy2: 3084.3 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 830000 clocks) C memcpy: 3084.3 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 830000 clocks) our memcpy: 1969.2 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 1300000 clocks) cmp_athlon ----------------- C strcpy: 3764.7 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 680000 clocks) our strcpy1: 4000.0 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 640000 clocks) our strcpy2: 3122.0 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 820000 clocks) C memcpy: 3122.0 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 820000 clocks) our memcpy: 1984.5 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 1290000 clocks) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- on windows: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- C:\DundE\anh\Eigene Dateien\downloads>cmp_athlon.exe C strcpy: 4821.1 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 531 clocks) our strcpy1: 4196.7 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 610 clocks) our strcpy2: 3148.8 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 813 clocks) C memcpy: 2873.2 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 891 clocks) our memcpy: 1973.8 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 1297 clocks) C:\DundE\anh\Eigene Dateien\downloads>cmp_i686.exe C strcpy: 4812.0 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 532 clocks) our strcpy1: 2976.7 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 860 clocks) our strcpy2: 3091.8 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 828 clocks) C memcpy: 2825.6 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 906 clocks) our memcpy: 1949.7 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 1313 clocks) our memcpy: 1949.7 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 1313 clocks) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- and now on i5 430m ... linux: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [dd@lappy Downloads]$ ./cmp_686 C strcpy: 1113.0 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 2300000 clocks) our strcpy1: 1497.1 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 1710000 clocks) our strcpy2: 1523.8 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 1680000 clocks) C memcpy: 1630.6 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 1570000 clocks) our memcpy: 1207.5 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 2120000 clocks) [dd@lappy Downloads]$ ./cmp_core2 C strcpy: 1075.6 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 2380000 clocks) our strcpy1: 1741.5 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 1470000 clocks) our strcpy2: 1706.7 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 1500000 clocks) C memcpy: 1600.0 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 1600000 clocks) our memcpy: 1213.3 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 2110000 clocks) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- windows: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- C:\Users\Lappi\Desktop\xcp>cmp_686.exe C strcpy: 3731.8 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 686 clocks) our strcpy1: 3417.9 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 749 clocks) our strcpy2: 3417.9 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 749 clocks) C memcpy: 2562.6 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 999 clocks) our memcpy: 1823.4 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 1404 clocks) C:\Users\Lappi\Desktop\xcp>cmp_core2.exe C strcpy: 4238.4 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 604 clocks) our strcpy1: 3699.4 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 692 clocks) our strcpy2: 3459.5 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 740 clocks) C memcpy: 2552.3 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 1003 clocks) our memcpy: 2051.3 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 1248 clocks) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I always compiled with gcc 4.5.1 -O2 -s ... Why are the results so different??? here the bench code: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /**** * * modified version from Preston L. Bannister * **/ #include <stdlib.h> #include <stdio.h> #include <time.h> #include <string.h> / ******************************************************************************* ******************************************************************************* * configs ******************************************************************************* ******************************************************************************/ #define LOOPS 10000000 static const char sOut1[] = "QBTnetfnh8TpTWvPzARBNWr2gMFofe3AzwMXVOGbdL2xOOACwMefrMxpxZ62qakW"; static const char sOut2[] = "ct6V7lZ42RoryDlvM1EzT54T5qV3DGUA4UIIhVv0TSK0lTx0TKIFc4E4YIdfjfKp"; / ******************************************************************************* ******************************************************************************* * engine ******************************************************************************* ******************************************************************************/ unsigned int nLength = ::strlen(sOut1); unsigned int dtLoop = 0; unsigned int nTotal = 0; char sWork[256]; typedef void (*doit)(const char*, const char*); void report_times(const char* s, unsigned int dt) { double ts = (double)dt / CLOCKS_PER_SEC; double mb = (double)(nTotal) / 1000000; double rate = mb / ts; printf("%s:\t\t %0.1f MB/second (%0.1f MB in %u clocks)\n", s, rate, mb, dt); } int time_function(doit fn) { clock_t t0 = ::clock(); for (int i=0; i<LOOPS; ++i) { const char* s1 = sOut1 + (15 & i); const char* s2 = sOut2 + nLength - (15 & i); (*fn)(s1,s2); } return (int)(::clock() - t0) - dtLoop; } void do_total(const char* s1,const char* s2) { nTotal += 4 * nLength; } / ******************************************************************************* * end engine ******************************************************************************/ / ******************************************************************************* ******************************************************************************* * benchmark ******************************************************************************* ******************************************************************************/ void do_c_strcpy(const char* s1,const char* s2) { ::strcpy(sWork,s1); ::strcpy(sWork,s2); } void our_strcpy1(char* s1,const char* s2) { while (*s1++ = *s2++); } void our_strcpy2(char* s1,const char* s2) { register unsigned int i; for (i = 0; s2[i] != 0; ++i) s1[i] = s2[i]; s1[i] = 0; } void do_our_strcpy1(const char* s1,const char* s2) { our_strcpy1(sWork,s1); our_strcpy1(sWork,s2); } void do_our_strcpy2(const char* s1,const char* s2) { our_strcpy2(sWork,s1); our_strcpy2(sWork,s2); } void do_c_memcpy(const char* s1, const char* s2) { int l1 = strlen(s1); int l2 = strlen(s2); ::memcpy(sWork, s1, l1); ::memcpy(sWork, s2, l2); } void our_memcpy(char* dest, const char* src, int size) { for(int i=0; i<size; ++i) dest[i] = src[i]; } void do_our_memcpy(const char* s1, const char* s2) { int l1 = strlen(s1); int l2 = strlen(s2); our_memcpy(sWork, s1, l1); our_memcpy(sWork, s2, l2); } / ******************************************************************************* * end benchmark ******************************************************************************/ / ******************************************************************************* ******************************************************************************* * main programm ******************************************************************************* ******************************************************************************/ int main(int ac,char** av) { dtLoop = time_function(do_total); report_times("C strcpy", time_function(do_c_strcpy)); report_times("our strcpy1", time_function(do_our_strcpy1)); report_times("our strcpy2", time_function(do_our_strcpy2)); report_times("C memcpy", time_function(do_c_memcpy)); report_times("our memcpy", time_function(do_our_memcpy)); return 0; }

On Aug 29, 3:44=A0pm, anhadikal <anhadi...@googlemail.com> wrote: > hello, > > i have strange results doing some simple "benchmark" ... > > on my amd athlon 4800+ x2: > > on linux: > -------------------------------------------------------------------------= -- -------------------------------------- > cmp_i686 > -------------- > C strcpy: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 3764.7 MB/secon= d (2560.0 MB in > 680000 clocks) > our strcpy1: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A02976.7 MB/second = (2560.0 MB in > 860000 clocks) > our strcpy2: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A03084.3 MB/second = (2560.0 MB in > 830000 clocks) > C memcpy: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 3084.3 MB/secon= d (2560.0 MB in > 830000 clocks) > our memcpy: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 1969.2 MB/second = (2560.0 MB in > 1300000 clocks) > > cmp_athlon > ----------------- > C strcpy: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 3764.7 MB/secon= d (2560.0 MB in > 680000 clocks) > our strcpy1: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A04000.0 MB/second = (2560.0 MB in > 640000 clocks) > our strcpy2: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A03122.0 MB/second = (2560.0 MB in > 820000 clocks) > C memcpy: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 3122.0 MB/secon= d (2560.0 MB in > 820000 clocks) > our memcpy: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 1984.5 MB/second = (2560.0 MB in > 1290000 clocks) > -------------------------------------------------------------------------= -- -------------------------------------- > > on windows: > -------------------------------------------------------------------------= -- -------------------------------------- > C:\DundE\anh\Eigene Dateien\downloads>cmp_athlon.exe > C strcpy: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A04821.1 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 5= 31 clocks) > our strcpy1: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 4196.7 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 610 c= locks) > our strcpy2: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 3148.8 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 813 c= locks) > C memcpy: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A02873.2 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 8= 91 clocks) > our memcpy: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A01973.8 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 129= 7 clocks) > > C:\DundE\anh\Eigene Dateien\downloads>cmp_i686.exe > C strcpy: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A04812.0 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 5= 32 clocks) > our strcpy1: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 2976.7 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 860 c= locks) > our strcpy2: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 3091.8 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 828 c= locks) > C memcpy: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A02825.6 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 9= 06 clocks) > our memcpy: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A01949.7 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 131= 3 clocks) > our memcpy: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A01949.7 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 131= 3 clocks) > -------------------------------------------------------------------------= -- -------------------------------------- > > and now on i5 430m ... > > linux: > -------------------------------------------------------------------------= -- -------------------------------------- > [dd@lappy Downloads]$ ./cmp_686 > C strcpy: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A01113.0 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 2= 300000 > clocks) > our strcpy1: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 1497.1 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 17100= 00 > clocks) > our strcpy2: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 1523.8 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 16800= 00 > clocks) > C memcpy: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A01630.6 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 1= 570000 > clocks) > our memcpy: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A01207.5 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 212= 0000 > clocks) > > [dd@lappy Downloads]$ ./cmp_core2 > C strcpy: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A01075.6 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 2= 380000 > clocks) > our strcpy1: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 1741.5 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 14700= 00 > clocks) > our strcpy2: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 1706.7 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 15000= 00 > clocks) > C memcpy: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A01600.0 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 1= 600000 > clocks) > our memcpy: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A01213.3 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 211= 0000 > clocks) > -------------------------------------------------------------------------= -- -------------------------------------- > > windows: > -------------------------------------------------------------------------= -- -------------------------------------- > C:\Users\Lappi\Desktop\xcp>cmp_686.exe > C strcpy: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A03731.8 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 6= 86 clocks) > our strcpy1: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 3417.9 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 749 c= locks) > our strcpy2: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 3417.9 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 749 c= locks) > C memcpy: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A02562.6 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 9= 99 clocks) > our memcpy: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A01823.4 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 140= 4 clocks) > > C:\Users\Lappi\Desktop\xcp>cmp_core2.exe > C strcpy: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A04238.4 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 6= 04 clocks) > our strcpy1: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 3699.4 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 692 c= locks) > our strcpy2: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 3459.5 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 740 c= locks) > C memcpy: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A02552.3 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 1= 003 clocks) > our memcpy: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A02051.3 MB/second (2560.0 MB in 124= 8 clocks) > -------------------------------------------------------------------------= -- -------------------------------------- > > I always compiled with gcc 4.5.1 -O2 -s ... Why are the results so > different??? > > here the bench code: > -------------------------------------------------------------------------= -- ----------------------------------------- > /**** > =A0* > =A0* modified version from Preston L. Bannister > =A0* > =A0**/ > > #include <stdlib.h> > #include <stdio.h> > #include <time.h> > #include <string.h> > > / > *************************************************************************= ** **** > > *************************************************************************= ** **** > =A0* configs > > *************************************************************************= ** **** > > *************************************************************************= ** ***/ > #define LOOPS 10000000 > static const char sOut1[] =3D > "QBTnetfnh8TpTWvPzARBNWr2gMFofe3AzwMXVOGbdL2xOOACwMefrMxpxZ62qakW"; > static const char sOut2[] =3D > "ct6V7lZ42RoryDlvM1EzT54T5qV3DGUA4UIIhVv0TSK0lTx0TKIFc4E4YIdfjfKp"; > > / > *************************************************************************= ** **** > > *************************************************************************= ** **** > =A0* engine > > *************************************************************************= ** **** > > *************************************************************************= ** ***/ > unsigned int nLength =3D ::strlen(sOut1); > unsigned int dtLoop =3D 0; > unsigned int nTotal =3D 0; > char sWork[256]; > typedef void (*doit)(const char*, const char*); > > void report_times(const char* s, unsigned int dt) > { > =A0 =A0 double ts =3D (double)dt / CLOCKS_PER_SEC; > =A0 =A0 double mb =3D (double)(nTotal) / 1000000; > =A0 =A0 double rate =3D mb / ts; > =A0 =A0 printf("%s:\t\t %0.1f MB/second (%0.1f MB in %u clocks)\n", s, > rate, mb, dt); > > } > > int time_function(doit fn) > { > =A0 =A0 clock_t t0 =3D ::clock(); > =A0 =A0 for (int i=3D0; i<LOOPS; ++i) { > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 const char* s1 =3D sOut1 + (15 & i); > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 const char* s2 =3D sOut2 + nLength - (15 & i); > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 (*fn)(s1,s2); > =A0 =A0 } > =A0 =A0 return (int)(::clock() - t0) - dtLoop; > > } > > void do_total(const char* s1,const char* s2) > { > =A0 =A0 nTotal +=3D 4 * nLength;} > > / > *************************************************************************= ** **** > =A0* end engine > > *************************************************************************= ** ***/ > > / > *************************************************************************= ** **** > > *************************************************************************= ** **** > =A0* benchmark > > *************************************************************************= ** **** > > *************************************************************************= ** ***/ > void do_c_strcpy(const char* s1,const char* s2) > { > =A0 =A0 ::strcpy(sWork,s1); > =A0 =A0 ::strcpy(sWork,s2); > > } > > void our_strcpy1(char* s1,const char* s2) > { > =A0 =A0 while (*s1++ =3D *s2++); > > } > > void our_strcpy2(char* s1,const char* s2) > { > =A0 =A0 register unsigned int i; > > =A0 =A0 for (i =3D 0; s2[i] !=3D 0; ++i) > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 s1[i] =3D s2[i]; > =A0 =A0 s1[i] =3D 0; > > } > > void do_our_strcpy1(const char* s1,const char* s2) > { > =A0 =A0 our_strcpy1(sWork,s1); > =A0 =A0 our_strcpy1(sWork,s2);} > > void do_our_strcpy2(const char* s1,const char* s2) > { > =A0 =A0 our_strcpy2(sWork,s1); > =A0 =A0 our_strcpy2(sWork,s2); > > } > > void do_c_memcpy(const char* s1, const char* s2) > { > =A0 =A0 int l1 =3D strlen(s1); > =A0 =A0 int l2 =3D strlen(s2); > =A0 =A0 ::memcpy(sWork, s1, l1); > =A0 =A0 ::memcpy(sWork, s2, l2); > > } > > void our_memcpy(char* dest, const char* src, int size) > { > =A0 =A0 for(int i=3D0; i<size; ++i) > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 dest[i] =3D src[i]; > > } > > void do_our_memcpy(const char* s1, const char* s2) > { > =A0 =A0 int l1 =3D strlen(s1); > =A0 =A0 int l2 =3D strlen(s2); > =A0 =A0 our_memcpy(sWork, s1, l1); > =A0 =A0 our_memcpy(sWork, s2, l2); > > } > > / > *************************************************************************= ** **** > =A0* end benchmark > > *************************************************************************= ** ***/ > > / > *************************************************************************= ** **** > > *************************************************************************= ** **** > =A0* main programm > > *************************************************************************= ** **** > > *************************************************************************= ** ***/ > int main(int ac,char** av) > { > =A0 =A0 dtLoop =3D time_function(do_total); > > =A0 =A0 report_times("C strcpy", time_function(do_c_strcpy)); > =A0 =A0 report_times("our strcpy1", time_function(do_our_strcpy1)); > =A0 =A0 report_times("our strcpy2", time_function(do_our_strcpy2)); > =A0 =A0 report_times("C memcpy", time_function(do_c_memcpy)); > =A0 =A0 report_times("our memcpy", time_function(do_our_memcpy)); > > =A0 =A0 return 0; > } Well, for one thing, you measuring actual elapsed time while the OS is consuming time as well. Difference OSs consume different amounts. You didn't say if you're running both OSs on the same machine and how. If you're using a hypervisor, there's overhead. If on different hardware, the memory systems can have a big effect on raw copy performance.

On 8/29/2010 3:44 PM, anhadikal wrote: > hello, > > i have strange results doing some simple "benchmark" ... > [... results snipped ...] > > I always compiled with gcc 4.5.1 -O2 -s ... Why are the results so > different??? One thing that stands out is the huge difference in the number of "clocks" the two systems report: The Linux counts are six and seven digits long (with many trailing zeroes), while Windows reports times of three or four digits (with variation in the units' place). The two are clearly not measuring time the same way, and they may not even be measuring the same thing. > here the bench code: > [... code snipped ...] It doesn't appear to be C; I'm guessing it's a language with some degree of shared ancestry, a gorilla to C's chimpanzee. If it were C, I'd draw your attention to 1) The `nTotal' variable is not the amount of data read and written, by the functions under test, but somewhat larger. The "MB/second" number that derives from it is therefore suspect. 2) It does not appear that any attempt has been made to account for the time consumed by the test framework itself. The clock count includes not only the data-copying time, but also the loop overhead, the function linkages, and so on. Again, "MB/second" is suspect. 3) It does not appear that any attempt has been made to equalize cache effects between the various tests. It is quite possible that the first function tested will pay the penalty for getting data from RAM to cache, while subsequent functions find the cache already hot. 4) This may be what you intended, but notice that memcpy() and its variants are asked to do less work than strcpy() and its. 5) There's a lot of sloppiness with types, the author apparently believing that `int' is good enough for everything. The clock_t and size_t types are there for a reason, and the program would be more trustworthy if it used them. As things stand, a system with (for instance) 32-bit `int' and 64-bit `clock_t' may give hopelessly bogus results. But, as noted, the code is not C so all these observations may be for nothing. Perhaps a visit to comp.lang.c++ might elicit some better-informed opinions. -- Eric Sosman esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid

On 08/30/10 09:19 AM, Gene wrote: > On Aug 29, 3:44 pm, anhadikal<anhadi...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> hello, >> >> i have strange results doing some simple "benchmark" ... >> >> on my amd athlon 4800+ x2: >> > > Well, for one thing, you measuring actual elapsed time while the OS is > consuming time as well. Difference OSs consume different amounts. > You didn't say if you're running both OSs on the same machine and > how. If you're using a hypervisor, there's overhead. If on different > hardware, the memory systems can have a big effect on raw copy > performance. > Did you have to quote the entire post just to add that? The code isn't C and the methods used suspect, what more is there to add? -- Ian Collins

Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> writes: > On 8/29/2010 3:44 PM, anhadikal wrote: [...] >> here the bench code: >> [... code snipped ...] > > It doesn't appear to be C; I'm guessing it's a language with some > degree of shared ancestry, a gorilla to C's chimpanzee. [...] It's nearly C, though. The only changes I had to make to get it to compile without warning (using "gcc -std=c99") were: Re-join some comment lines that had been split. Delete all "::" tokens. Change unsigned int nLength = strlen(sOut1); - to unsigned int nLength = sizeof sOut1 + 1; Adding some warning options produced warnings about unused parameters in do_total and main, and "suggest parentheses around assignment used as truth value" on "while (*s1++ = *s2++);". It would have been nice to fix those problems before posting, though. -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst> Nokia "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this." -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

On 8/29/2010 6:17 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: > Eric Sosman<esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> writes: >> [...] >> It doesn't appear to be C; I'm guessing it's a language with some >> degree of shared ancestry, a gorilla to C's chimpanzee. > [...] > > It's nearly C, though. The only changes I had to make to get it > to compile without warning (using "gcc -std=c99") were: > > Re-join some comment lines that had been split. > > Delete all "::" tokens. > > Change > unsigned int nLength = strlen(sOut1); - > to > unsigned int nLength = sizeof sOut1 + 1; ITYM "- 1". But the point remains: If he's using Objective COBOL, he should ask his questions in an Objective COBOL forum and not here. Plus, the other points I raised would remain (or "become") relevant if his Subjective FORTRAN were translated to C. -- Eric Sosman esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid

Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> writes: > On 8/29/2010 6:17 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: [...] >> Change >> unsigned int nLength = strlen(sOut1); - >> to >> unsigned int nLength = sizeof sOut1 + 1; > > ITYM "- 1". Right. [...] -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst> Nokia "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this." -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

Similiar Articles:

Question with linking program with ATI opengl library - comp ...
... on both linux and windows sid ... about the performance difference is that, ati linux driver directly replaced system opengl libraries, like libGL.so.1, etc. But on windows ...

NFS performance tuning help - comp.unix.solaris
Hey All, I'm having trouble with NFS write performance. ... client: NO_HDR="-P 1" for b in 0 1 2 3 etc etc ... to set the socket buffer size and thus the TCP window ...

Benchmarks for SAS for Windows vs SAS for Unix - comp.soft-sys.sas ...
Performance is good. This machine is being replaced. We would like to avoid ... (Nah, I don't know the length on UNIX, Linux, Windows, etc., so don't ask me) So, if you ...

Compatible with the most modern hardware Linux Ditro - comp.os ...
... linux as an alternative to windows to ... Linux drivers > reasonably close to their Windows drivers, the best performance will ... etc. Is there something similar in linux ...

Doubt performance Solaris 10 Vs Linux RH - comp.unix.solaris ...
It looks like the performance of the two chipsets is ... shuns rpm, apt, etc., so ... Timekeeping broken on Windows XP ... Solaris vs. Linux Performance - nixCraft ...

transfer Fedora OS from on hard drive to another one - comp.os ...
KVM is much improved on F12, Windows VM performance sucked on ... the performance is as good as VMware (Linux VM performance on ... etc files that you might want to copy, /etc ...

migrating mainframe z/VM Rexx to linux ooRexx - comp.lang.rexx ...
... emulate on systems where you can use charin() to read an entire file in one call (OS/2, Windows, Linux, etc). I use the mechanism frequently to improve the performance ...

OpenGL for Linux: GF4-MX440-8X or FX5200? - comp.graphics.api ...
It looks like the performance of the two ... software bundle (hey, I use Windows on the machine too), etc. ... the FX5600 to run faster under Linux than they do under Windows ...

NFS slowdown - Solaris client, Linux server. - comp.unix.solaris ...
... experiencing an itermitent NFS performance ... we entered the hosts in their /etc ... that Linux works good with is - Linux. Does that remind anyone of Microsoft Windows?

T1000/T2000 + ZFS + SAS performance - comp.unix.solaris
It works, but is relatively ugly, inelegant, etc ... It runs on Windows for sure, and probably on Solaris. ... T1000/T2000 + ZFS + SAS performance - Unix Linux Forum - Fixunix.com ...

Linux to Windows Migration - Microsoft Corporation: Software ...
Linux to Windows Migration ... strcpy(pszTemp,"BOMB THIS"); In this example the ... dialog box select Thread from the Performance object ...

High-performance Timing on Linux / Windows - tdistler.com
... timing is to use functions like gettimeofday(), GetSystemTime(), etc ... 3 Responses to High-performance Timing on Linux / Windows

7/23/2012 2:41:32 AM