Once upon a time, Sam Varshavchik <mrsam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said: > Fulko Hew writes: > >I know the definition for memcpy (on Linux) says don't use overlapping > >regions > > No, the definition for memcpy on Linux does not say that. What says that is > the POSIX specification. Which is called a "standard". Just for kicks, I pulled my K&R (ANSI edition) off the shelf, and it says the same thing. However, I still think that changing memcpy away from years of "it just works" is an ABI change that should not be taken lightly and IMHO shouldn't be done in a "stable" release of glibc. Is memcpy called often enough (and on large enough blocks) that this change makes a real performance difference (not just on a synthetic memcpy benchmark)? A change like this could even introduce security bugs in code that was formerly working. This is also especially annoying when the change may not really make difference in performance (according to Linus' test). -- Chris Adams <cmadams@xxxxxxxxxx> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
