On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 10:30:00PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> said: > > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 09:03:02PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote: > > > 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)? > > > > It's a change in behaviour on x86. Have you verified that overlapping > > memcpy worked on all other glibc-supported architectures until this > > point? > > How is that relevant? If the behavior changes on only some > architectures, then it is okay? If it's broken on non-x86 already then there haven't been "years of 'it just works'". -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
