Related articles |
---|
[3 earlier articles] |
Re: Different string format options, benefits? agulbra@Siri.Unit.NO (1991-10-18) |
Re: Different string format options, benefits? db@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Dave Berry) (1991-10-20) |
Re: Different string format options, benefits? tm@well.sf.ca.us (1991-10-22) |
Re: Different string format options, benefits? buzzard@eng.umd.edu (1991-10-25) |
Re: Different string format options, benefits? henry@zoo.toronto.edu (1991-10-25) |
Re: Different string format options, benefits? sdm7g@aemsun.med.virginia.edu (1991-11-01) |
Re: Different string format options, benefits? bliss@sp64.csrd.uiuc.edu (1991-11-05) |
Re: Different data structure (was: string) format options, benefits? kevin@simd.stanford.edu (1991-11-05) |
String formats macrakis@osf.org (1991-11-06) |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
From: | bliss@sp64.csrd.uiuc.edu (Brian Bliss) |
Keywords: | code, optimize |
Organization: | UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development |
References: | 91-10-061 91-10-077 |
Date: | Tue, 5 Nov 91 19:25:54 GMT |
In article 91-10-061 coxs2@rpi.edu (Sean C. Cox) writes:
>I am curious about the benefits/costs related to the two general character
>string formats [null terminated vs. counted]
Certainly using the length string format is better on any computer
with any type of concurrency. A test for zero termination creates
a loop dependency, whereas most string operations can be vectorized/
concurrentized if the length is known beforehand. Even if the machine
only has a data prefetch mechanism, one must know that fetching the value
of the next byte will not cause a core dump. Even if the machine is
purely sequential, knowing the length beforehand allows one to
perform word-size data fetches, instead of byte-by-byte (you can do
this and check for zero-termination, too, but the code is a lot
uglier).
bb
--
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.