Re^2: Unexplained benchmark when using chop vs. chomp (or neither)

Note that both chop and chomp can take an array as the argument. Interestingly,

chop @copy;
[download]

makes mychomp and mychop just as fast as nada.

($q=q:Sq=~/;[c](.)(.)/;chr(-||-|5+lengthSq)`"S|oS2"`map{chr |+ord
}map{substrSq`S_+|`|}3E|-|`7**2-3:)=~y+S|`+$1,++print+eval$q,q,a,
[download]

Comment on Re^2: Unexplained benchmark when using chop vs. chomp (or neither) Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Unexplained benchmark when using chop vs. chomp (or neither) by davido (Cardinal) on Mar 08, 2018 at 17:09 UTC
Yes, I had considered setting up alternatives that pass an array to chomp and chop, but figured it wasn't going to be a very useful comparison for this specific situation. But absolutely, pushing the loop into internals is going to be a lot faster. In fact it wouldn't have surprised me if you had said that the array version was even faster than the 'nada' version, since the 'nada' version still has a loop, unless it's been optimized away, which I'm not sure on. Dave	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^3: Unexplained benchmark when using chop vs. chomp (or neither)
by davido (Cardinal) on Mar 08, 2018 at 17:09 UTC

Yes, I had considered setting up alternatives that pass an array to chomp and chop, but figured it wasn't going to be a very useful comparison for this specific situation. But absolutely, pushing the loop into internals is going to be a lot faster. In fact it wouldn't have surprised me if you had said that the array version was even faster than the 'nada' version, since the 'nada' version still has a loop, unless it's been optimized away, which I'm not sure on.

Dave

[reply]