Probably you can make it even faster by avoiding the multiplication, like

   unsigned int offset = 0;
   for (i = 0; i < image.height; i++) {
dst[offset] = src[i];
offset += pitch;
   }

More than two decades ago I learned to avoid mul and imul. Use shifts, 
add and lea instead,
that was the credo those days. The name of the game was CP/M 80/86, a86, 
d86 and ddt ;-)

But let´s get serious again.

Your proposed change of the patch results in a 21 ms performance 
decrease on my system.
Yes, I do know that this is hard to believe. I tested a similar 
variation before, and the results
were even worse.

Avoiding mul is a good idea in assembly language today, but often it is 
better to write a
multiplication  with the loop counter in C and not to introduce an extra 
variable instead. The
compiler will optimize the code and it´s easier for gcc without that 
extra variable.

More interesting would be the question what should be done for idx==2 or 
idx==3. Probably
fb_pad_aligned_buffer() is also slower for those cases. But does anybody 
use such fonts?

cu,
 knut


-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf