From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id TAA23073 for caml-red; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 19:29:54 +0100 (MET) Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id HAA31046 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 07:49:17 +0100 (MET) Received: from smtp3-cm.mail.eni.net (smtp3a-cm.mail.eni.net [216.133.226.136]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id eBE6nGL01832 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 07:49:16 +0100 (MET) Received: from checkerlap.d6.com ([216.233.204.162]) by smtp3-cm.mail.eni.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA18356; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 22:49:07 -0800 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001213223322.00cb3c90@shell16.ba.best.com> X-Sender: def6@shell16.ba.best.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 22:48:44 -0800 To: eijiro_sumii@anet.ne.jp From: Chris Hecker Subject: Re: substring match like "strstr" Cc: caml-list@inria.fr, gerd@gerd-stolpmann.de, sumii@venus.is.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp In-Reply-To: <20001214123635H.sumii@yl.is.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001211103237.00c12100@shell16.ba.best.com> <00120814135508.00625@ice> <20001210221657W.sumii@yl.is.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> <4.3.2.7.2.20001211103237.00c12100@shell16.ba.best.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: weis@pauillac.inria.fr > strstr_imp2 90.57 > strstr_fun2 89.64 > C strstr 53.76 Is that C the simple C one I posted, or the libc one on sparc? Here are my timings with yours added: strstr_fun total = 1.135000 (5,0,19,13) strstr_fun2 total = 1.470000 (5,0,19,13) strstr_imp total = 1.030000 (5,0,19,13) strstr_imp2 total = 0.965000 (5,0,19,13) strstr_c total = 0.790000 (5,0,19,13) strstr_libc total = 0.370000 (5,0,19,13) Your new strstr is actually slower on x86 than your first one, but I haven't looked into why yet. It may also be data (since my data is obviously lame garbage). I should try Alpha Linux... Chris