https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90263
--- Comment #12 from Wilco <wilco at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #11) > My concern is that transforming memccpy to memcpy would leave little > incentive for libraries like glibc to provide a more optimal implementation. > Would implementing the function simply as memcpy and having the latter > return the result of the former be a viable option? Basically, rename > memcpy to meccpy, parameterizing it on the termination character in the > process, and change memcpy to call memccpy and return the first pointer. I have no idea what you mean - there is no way you can implement memcpy using memccpy. It never makes sense to slow down a performance critical function in order to speed up an infrequently used one.
