View Single Post
Old 02 July 2011, 18:15   #201
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Kansas
Posts: 873
Originally Posted by pintcat View Post
Yes, that's the one I use. I also tried the other copy-mem patch:, but it didn't made any difference.
You probably won't notice much difference between CopyMem060 and CMQ060 on a 68060. CopyMem060 is faster at small copies which are more common but it takes lots of them to be "noticeable". There is a speed chart as tested in the readme comparing CopyMem060 to CMQ060 and other patches ...

CopyMem040 is significantly faster than CMQ060 (there is no CMQ040) on a 68040. CopyMem040 is in the CopyMem archive.

Originally Posted by pintcat View Post
Does it matter at which point the patch is initialized? When I tried it the first time I simply started it from shell right after the system boot. Later, I placed it in the Startup-Sequence after the setpatch command.
No, it doesn't matter when the patch is started. The point of putting it early in the Startup-Sequence is too speed up booting as AmigaOS uses exec.library/CopyMem() often. It should work to drop CopyMem060 in the WBstartup drawer as well but it is started late in the boot process so won't potentially accelerate booting much. Starting by shell or double clicking is perfectly fine as well.

Many other programs benefit from CopyMem patches. The newest versions of AWeb use CopyMem() to render the background and the speed difference with the patch is noticeable on my system when scrolling quickly. Many other programs use CopyMem() but few use it enough to be "noticeable". Various tests will show a speedup though.
matthey is online now  
AdSense AdSense  
Page generated in 0.05648 seconds with 9 queries