| |||||||||||||
Glibc change exposing bugsGlibc change exposing bugsPosted Nov 13, 2010 1:07 UTC (Sat) by rriggs (subscriber, #11598)In reply to: Glibc change exposing bugs by neilbrown Parent article: Glibc change exposing bugs
memmove: safe, fast, verbose function name
memcpy: unsafe, at least as fast as memmove, one less character to type
Which one do you think your average C programmer will choose?
Which one do you think new programmers are taught to use (in schools that still teach C programming)?
(Log in to post comments)
Glibc change exposing bugs Posted Nov 13, 2010 2:52 UTC (Sat) by neilbrown (subscriber, #359) [Link]
So we can save the world by creating a 'memmv' in glibc which aliases memmove? Brilliant!
Glibc change exposing bugs Posted Nov 15, 2010 16:43 UTC (Mon) by renox (subscriber, #23785) [Link]
Too late!
And memcpy should also be named as mem_unsafe_copy, but yes if you tell developers to use safe function by default and to optimize only when they can show benchmarks that the optimisation will make a difference, then yes, you'd get probably better software (if a bit slower).
|
|||||||||||||