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=QkdeEY0ZvzohM62s
	JQiMLK/wp+rNVFyvNrw9M/RCbqQ7h7oxoUu/FTRsQvqipthkTlOJBbnvgvQ6GChB
	zYF3TAJcUQRb/6r2CD5mhV+1PpxpRrvAD45qDxSlxNIfDITQo0g8oqt4xeMa6Hvf
	o4z+rcQWTWPmRRh2r+fj7XjQEPo=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-id: <52F56E92.3070309@cygwin.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 18:38:58 -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> <52F553AA DOT 9090500 AT cygwin DOT com> <52F561EE DOT 8090806 AT tiscali DOT co DOT uk>
In-reply-to: <52F561EE.8090806@tiscali.co.uk>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

On 2/7/2014 5:45 PM, David Stacey wrote:
> On 07/02/14 21:44, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
>> 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. ;-)
>>
>
> I thought the point of the programme /was/ to call getpwnam() a million
> times. Time this as accurately as you can. Then, with a quick division, you
> get the time for one call.

Hm, I missed that he summarized with _microseconds_, even though I quoted
that too in my response. :-(

My average was much closer to 2 microseconds per call but that could be
machine differences.

In any case, sorry for the noise.

-- 
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