10.10.2016, 15:58
I updated the include once again, here are the new benchmarks:
I did benchmarks between this include and Pawn.CMD, and these are the results:
Check out the main post for the code used to benchmark both. This include seems to be considerably faster! Could anyone confirm this?
P.S. I didn't benchmark this include with Pawn.CMD before as PC_EmulateCommand wasn't executing commands for me, but then I noticed it only executes if a player is connected to the server (thanks to Stinged's code).
Based on those results, I doubt Pawn.CMD is any faster than I-ZCMD.
I don't know or have seen a single person define commands like that before, so I guess it's more than okay. Not to mention tolower is vastly slow, and 0x60 doesn't do anything. Thanks, by the way!
Код:
This Include: 841 This Include: 848 This Include: 843 This Include: 846 This Include: 850
Код:
This Include: 853 | 10/10/2016 This Include: 848 | 10/10/2016 This Include: 852 | 10/10/2016 This Include: 850 | 10/10/2016 This Include: 851 | 10/10/2016 Pawn.CMD: 1,446 | 10/10/2016 Pawn.CMD: 1,451 | 10/10/2016 Pawn.CMD: 1,460 | 10/10/2016 Pawn.CMD: 1,455 | 10/10/2016 Pawn.CMD: 1,449 | 10/10/2016
P.S. I didn't benchmark this include with Pawn.CMD before as PC_EmulateCommand wasn't executing commands for me, but then I noticed it only executes if a player is connected to the server (thanks to Stinged's code).
Based on those results, I doubt Pawn.CMD is any faster than I-ZCMD.
I don't know or have seen a single person define commands like that before, so I guess it's more than okay. Not to mention tolower is vastly slow, and 0x60 doesn't do anything. Thanks, by the way!