zirias@
Developer
It certainly is the usecase for functions that virtually any program will use, which is true for the string functions in libc.Yeah, but that's definitely not a typical use case.
I'd have some doubts about this looking at the straight-forward implementation of e.g.If you run the stress test A on a Threadripper and on an Athlon, of course you'll notice that Threadripper will show far better performance.
strcpy()
: for (char *tmp = dest; *tmp++ = *src++;); return dest;
. Short of optimizations done by the compiler, this copies one byte at a time with no opportunity to parallelize anything.But still what Jose said: "real workloads" is what matters. If they show a relevant difference between FreeBSD's libc and glibc then it's time for action. (edit: as mentioned earlier, there are optimized machine-specific implementations available in FreeBSD's libc, and maybe they're just good enough ....)