30.05.2015, 15:45
I checked it but I couldn't find the plugin(download links are invalid)
You may be right.dFile can be faster than y_ini or eINI since it is a plugin.
If you make your own strlen and benchmark it with native strlen then the native would be like 2x to 2.5 x faster than your code though both do the same.
native ~ plugin
You may be right.dFile can be faster than y_ini or eINI since it is a plugin.
If you make your own strlen and benchmark it with native strlen then the native would be like 2x to 2.5 x faster than your code though both do the same.
native ~ plugin
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Yashas
I am wondering if native functions are faster than the ones I make.
Код:
for(new i = 400000;i;i--)
strcmp(x1,x2);
new b = GetTickCount();
printf("SD TST:%d",b-a);
a = GetTickCount();
for(new i = 400000;i;i--)
{
new j =0;
while(1)
{
if(x1[j] != x2[j++])
break;
}
}
My version had to be faster because it cannot be optimized further ,in fact it doesn't even function like strcmp and does less work than strcmp. I had made my own parser which actually checks every character,does all the copying,all comparing,... - So is this bad?I thought I would avoid the function overhead by doing it but.... Thanks  |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ******
No, natives are WAY faster than PAWN code! If you found it was twice as fast I would suggest you retest as I would suspect it is far more than that.
|