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: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , 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: 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> Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit 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 > #include > #include > > 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