Just a minor new twist on free()

[Kevin D. Quitt]

In article <1990Oct04.110928.16788 at virtech.uucp> cpcahil at virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) writes:
>It appears you took my comments as a personal attack, which they were not
>meant to be.  However, you raised some points that I will respond to...
>
>In article <PDS.90Oct3103126 at lemming.webo.dg.com> pds at lemming.webo.dg.com (Paul D. Smith) writes:
>>While your simple case might indeed not be much of a performance hit,
>>what about something like:
>>
>>    #define ARRAY_LEN   10000
>>    char *array[ARRAY_LEN], *ap;
>>    int i;
>>
>>    for (ap = array, i = 0; i < ARRAY_LEN; ++i, ++ap)
>>    {
>>        if (ap != NULL)
>>            free(ap)
>>    }
>>
>>Now, *this* is a significant performance hit, if you consider an extra
>
>No it is not.  Actually, if array has greater than a small percentage 
>of NULL pointers, the savings of the function call by the if test will
>be substantial.   Rember, comparisons (especially comparisons against 
>zero) are a very cheap operation.  Function calls are not.
>
>>10000 comparisons.  Before you retort about using memset() or bzero(),
>>please read the FAQ on NULL pointers ... and no, I wouldn't do it this

    On the three systems I'm using, this is faster than the call without
the if, not slower! Testing for 0 is *much* faster than the overhead of
a function call - which function starts with a test for zero.  So if I
test first, I pay the penalty for comparing against zero.  If it's zero
I have a major win; if it's not, I pay a few percent in performance
penalty.  Have you folks actually tried timing your examples instead
of just using gedanken experiments?


-- 
 _
Kevin D. Quitt         demott!kdq   kdq at demott.com
DeMott Electronics Co. 14707 Keswick St.   Van Nuys, CA 91405-1266
VOICE (818) 988-4975   FAX (818) 997-1190  MODEM (818) 997-4496 PEP last

                96.37% of all statistics are made up.