> For each object, size calls are made to the fgetc function and the results stored, in the order read, in an array of unsigned char exactly overlaying the object
(wording unchanged since C99)
If the file is unbuffered, depending on how the implementation handles buffering, and how it interprets the standard, then perhaps it does end up hitting a path where there's 1 ReadFile call per byte...
I don't know how most implementations get around this. Presumably it's valid to interpret "calls are made" as "behaving as if calls are made", meaning fread can copy data out of the FILE's buffer directly, or make calls directly to whatever routine fgetc defers to, rather than calling fgetc N times literally. Looks like glibc's fread does this.
As to why you'd do that? - well, who knows the exact circumstances in this case. Perhaps this was faster in some meaningful case that was relevant to some other project (and then maybe the fread doesn't call fgetc after all!). I'm just speculating. Well-reused code often ends up with stuff that needs rethinking, that, even if noticed, nobody has the time or inclination to attempt to fix.
I had to convince people with benchmarks regularly that, yes, you could write the handful of lines to do proper user-space buffering and trivially run rings around any code that did extra context switches, because a lot of people didn't realise the cost difference between system calls and calling their own functions.
This included, by the way, the MySQL client library, at one point, which would do small read for length fields instead of larger non-blocking reads into a buffer all the time
But I think the parent comment's point is that the issue is in the implementation of fread itself in the standard library. It's perfectly reasonable for an application to pass it 1, 65536 (i.e. one byte, up to 65536 times) and expect it not to issue 65536 separate OS calls.
No, I'm not saying that's why. I'm simply saying there is a difference between asking for 1 byte or 65k bytes of something. Even dd runs the same under Linux.
dd bs=10k count=1 is faster than bs=1 count=10k
I remember trying to recover some data from a spinning disk, and trying to slowly creep up on the data. So I wanted 1 byte per, I wanted it to nibble, until it hit whatever the errored part was. If I just grabbed the lot, it'd error out from the whole read.
The latter (as usual when comparing OpenBSD and Linux) is more complex, but both multiply count by size and then go their way.
Also, the API contract allows fread to read fewer bytes than requested. I would except any implementation to do that.
But maybe, somebody interpreted the contract differently than major OSes, in the sense that a call isn’t allowed to write partial size-sized chunks to user memory and/or advance the file position further than its return value advocates (that, I think, is something that the implementations above can do, and might be considered a bug)
Yes it's different. As others have noted, the difference is what is returned if less than 65536 are available to read in the file: total failure vs partial read.
There is, unsurprisingly, no requirement that it has an unnecessarily inefficient implementation to meet this behavioral requirement. (The C standard doesn't talk about such things as syscalls but, even if it did, it surely wouldn't require such a thing.)
The irony is that that partial read is actually the default on both Windows and Posix (i.e. both ReadFile and read() will read up to the number of bytes specified). So a one-syscall implementation for fread would have been easier than multiple calls, and certainly would be standard compliant.
The dd example isn't comparable because dd is much lower level, and you really are specifying how the syscalls should be made.
I've not looked at the code (or even the man pages) and it is a long time since I touched anything that low level, so this might be completely wrong, but if there is an error before the next 64KiB (including just hitting EOF) then the semantics could be different. Asking for 1x64KiB I would expect to just error as there aren't the requested number of bytes. Asking for 64Ki lots of 1 byte might simple error just the same, or it might at least populate the buffer with what it can read, or if the meaning of 1,65536 is actually “up to 64Ki lots of 1B” then it would populate the buffer as far as possible and return the amount read rather than an error condition.
If the per-byte option is slow but still fast enough, and dealing with the semantics is less faf, then people will go for that because the tiny time loss is worth the larger effort reduction. Of course this assumes the underlying system doesn't change, as with the “making local code to run as on-demand networked code” example higher in the thread which changes the relative performance characteristics of the two calling methods significantly.