X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature:	a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to
	:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=Bi0aPyst/3I3REv+
	hDvDbaXQtH4ut0bMF+nZxcAOihqGhOtnq8esTEVDycHkzf2FaKoGCmdzCpf/U2p+
	oGP3mP1L+YXijzDPGXJCH2Zjyq64Po6BYwb/9Js9AU/EKigpgwefPRinjd95itO4
	WV2uwDrDLQwsDdASOnt4wZkicFo=
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to
	:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=VKnCYJoRP+EFHz2No9Q8Oz
	oqgMU=; b=DRuprjfsyEa0xSyKxj4w8QLvHB8ov7HosuDGPjyi+oFo7H+wqe/DK9
	8Wh2JeOYAYfVYegRwSbirKGdv9OgtWC5IazoanZrxqWp9HR6QnyR//Gd1dE67LEX
	jYqybehDjdAWR0Rd/KkvcxgfTqtVDtPlYU7GqLNY/MOQcOqpUuEnI=
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Authentication-Results:	sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found:	No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status:	No, score=-0.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_05,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-HELO:	vms173017pub.verizon.net
Message-id:	<52F553AA.9090500@cygwin.com>
Date:	Fri, 07 Feb 2014 16:44:10 -0500
From:	"Larry Hall (Cygwin)" <reply-to-list-only-lh AT cygwin DOT com>
Reply-to:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-version:	1.0
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: get rid of getpwent? (Was: cygwin-1.7.28 getpwent header declaration changes ?)
References:	<52F339CA DOT 5070305 AT gmail DOT com> <20140206090117 DOT GD2821 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <52F361C5 DOT 3000807 AT gmail DOT com> <20140206141321 DOT GI2821 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <52F40208 DOT 5030901 AT etr-usa DOT com> <20140207094917 DOT GN2821 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <52F53D7C DOT 5050201 AT etr-usa DOT com>
In-reply-to:	<52F53D7C.5050201@etr-usa.com>

On 2/7/2014 3:09 PM, Warren Young wrote:
> This takes 7.1 seconds on my system, with a 12-line /etc/passwd file:
>
>       #include <pwd.h>
>       #include <stdio.h>
>       #include <stdlib.h>
>
>       int main(int argc, const char* argv[])
>       {
>           int i;
>           const char* user = argv[1];
>
>           if (!user) {
>               printf("usage: %s username\n", argv[0]);
>               exit(1);
>           }
>
>           for (i = 0; i < 1000000; ++i) {
>               struct passwd* pw = getpwnam(user);
>               if (!pw) {
>                   printf("User %s doesn't exist!\n", user);
>                   exit(2);
>               }
>               else if (i == 0) {
>                   printf("User %s is UID %d\n", user, pw->pw_uid);
>               }
>           }
>       }
>
> So, each getpwnam() call takes 7.1 microseconds on average.

I think you forgot to put an "exit(0);" after the last printf().  Without
it, you're checking for the same user a million times, which is certainly
going to take a little time. ;-)

-- 
Larry

_____________________________________________________________________

A: Yes.
 > Q: Are you sure?
 >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
 >>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -