Hi!
On Mit, 2014-03-19 at 14:39 +0100, Peter Senna Tschudin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Bernd Petrovitsch
> <bernd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Die, 2014-03-18 at 22:11 +0100, Peter Senna Tschudin wrote:
> >> The Coccinelle script scripts/coccinelle/misc/memcpy-assign.cocci look
> >> for opportunities to replace a call to memcpy by a struct assignment.
> >> This patch removes memcpy-assign.cocci as it is not clear that this
> >> convention has an impact on the generated code.
> >
> > Using struct assignment keeps the type check and is just for this reason
> > always preferable over memcpy().
> What about the assignment hiding that a potentially large memcpy is
> happening instead of just a pointer assignment?
It makes no difference if you copy 2KB with a struct assignment or with
a memcpy(). IMHO most probably each and every C compiler produces the
same code for both cases.
And - more important - I assume that people which actually read the code
(to understand the code) also know if the variables there are
pointers/ints or a (somewhat large) struct (if only one see an field
access in the struct, it should be pretty clear).
I don't think it makes actually much sense trying to read source without
that ....
Bernd
--
Bernd Petrovitsch Email : bernd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
LUGA : http://www.luga.at
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
