Copymem Quick & Big Released!

[Oldsmobile_Mike]

So the "new" results are with the old version of the patch, and the "old" results are with the new version of the patch?

Sorry, I haven't had my coffee yet today, but that makes no sense to me, either.  

I'd write them something like:

Speed with no patch: x
Speed with old version of patch: y
Speed with new version of patch: z

But maybe that's just me.  

[Oldsmobile_Mike]

Should of made them Irish coffee's... Then you would have understood those results

:pint::pint:

I think @speedgeek thinks differently than the rest of us.  But as long as he keeps churning out his awesome performance hacks, I'm okay with that!  

[Oldsmobile_Mike]

Why is this so hard to understand?

1) Old results = CMQ patch routines (or original routines if no CMQ patch installed)
2) New results = Copymemquicker2.8 routines

You guys must need some coffee, tea and vitamins... :lol:

That still doesn't make any sense, man.  Because in your example, you said:

Old CopyMem    :  1.46 secs
New CopyMem    :  1.51 secs (+ 3.4%)       

So the old routine completes in 1.46 seconds.  The new routine completes in 1.51 seconds.  Any way of reading that the old routine is faster, then.

Oh well, I give up.  ??  Keep up the good work!  :roflmao:

[Oldsmobile_Mike]

A few thoughts from Mr. Spock...

Logically, for the old routines to be faster than the new routines there a 2 possible choices here:

1) The old routines (from exec) were patched with a CMQ patch which has faster routines than the new routines (from Copymemquicker2.

OR

2) The old routines (from exec) are faster than the new routines (from Copymemquicker2.

P.S. If the old routines (from exec) are really faster than why would anyone bother coding or using CMQ patches?

This still doesn't make sense. Although I think I'm starting to get your logic, it's rather confusing to the layman. Trying to dumb it down for the average person, I'd still write it like this:

Performance of routines without any patch: x
Performance of routines with version of patch you released a month or so back: y
Performance of routines with new version of patch you released this week: z

Logically, that should be a descending sequence of numbers. I.e., if it takes 20 seconds without any patch, 15 seconds with the old version of patch, and 10 seconds with the latest new and improved version of the patch. Why would you write a new version of the patch that's slower than the old version of the patch?

Would still like to see a speed comparison against this version, BTW!

http://aminet.net/package/util/boot/CopyMem

Anyhow, just messing with ya. Keep up the good work!