On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 4:46 AM, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote: > Ok, I think I've managed to narrow the performance gap to just about nothing > but noise, though to do this the code is now a bit bigger. I've added a > series of tests to see if the padding is > 0 and if it's not then I'm doing > things the old way. > > I've also added a some code which does a fast test to see if it is worth > while calling the padding processing function. This is just a simple if (*p > <= '9'), I'm not completely happy with that as it does look a bit weird, but > to compensate I've added a good comment to explain what it is doing. > > Please find attached the new patch ... version v0.5 and also updated > benchmark results.
Are you sure this is the right set of benchmark results? This still reflects a 15-18% slowdown AFAICS.
I think I must have forgot to save it before I emailed it...