the implimentation of memcpy in arch specific files seems to be more efficient than the generic memcpy/memmove :)
http://lxr.linux.no/source/arch/m68k/lib/string.c#L79 On 8/14/07, pradeep singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 8/14/07, arshad hussain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [snip] > > > then why is memcpy present in the sources can't we > > > simply do > > > > > > "#define memcpy memmove" in include/linux/string.h > > > > > > or am I missing something? > > I don't know but memcpy generates better asm code AFAIK. > Essentially memove is nothing but > int memmove(void *dest, void *src, size_t n) > { > //some checks > //some adjustments to src and destination as they may overlap as per > //definition. > > memcpy(dest, src, n); > > } > > thanks > > > > > > Regards > > > Sri-- > > > SK Malik > > > > > > -- > > > To unsubscribe from this list: send an email with > > > "unsubscribe kernelnewbies" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Please read the FAQ at http://kernelnewbies.org/FAQ > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sri, > > > > My guess ... > > 1. fitness of purpose, > > 2. memcpy _MAY_ be faster than memmove > > > > Thank You > > > > > > > -- > play the game > -- SK Malik
