Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 00:33:48 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Thinking about release On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 11:30:47PM -0500, Strake wrote: > On 09/07/2013, Andre Renaud <andre@...ewatersys.com> wrote: > > I wasn't too sure on memmove, but I've seen a reasonable amount of > > code which just uses memmove as standard (rather than memcpy), to > > avoid the possibility of overlapping regions. Not a great policy > > Why? What loss with memmove? That it takes 1.0125 times as long as > memcpy, other than when memcpy might just trash the array or summon > nasal demons anyhow? If you're performing a copy between objects that overlap, or if you're not sure whether you might be, then it's very likely that you'd doing something wrong. Or at least that's my opinion. Anyway I have no objection to an optimized memmove, but I do think starting with just memcpy is easier for review and cleanup/optimization. Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.