|The stupid question is the question not asked|
Re^2: Improving performance of checksum calculationby Crackers2 (Parson)
|on May 30, 2009 at 16:15 UTC||Need Help??|
* You should be using binmode on your input handle.
In the real program this is in a subroutine which gets pre-opened handles passed in; I just added a quick open at the top here to have a runnable snippet.
* ($check_value & 0x7fffffff) << 1 might be safer (more portable) than ($check_value << 1) & 0xffffffff
It more clearly shows what it's actually trying to do as well I think. Thanks.
* The following is faster (but nowhere near as fast as C would be):
As shown in my reply to BrowserUK below (which I'll post in a little bit), this cut my time from 1:38 to 1:26, or about a 12% improvement.
* Using C doesn't require shelling out. perlxstut or Inline::C will allow you to access C code from perl.
I looked at Inline::C, but that appears to require a compiler to be available at runtime, which isn't guaranteed. Still it might be worth doing a "use it if it's there" type thing.
So in the end I took BrowserUK's C code below and did all the magic xs invocations to get an .so; I'm including that inside an eval, so if the .so is not there it'll fall back to the slow perl implementation.