On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 12:23:35 -0500 Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 12:19:11 -0500 > Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org> wrote: > > > Because memcmp() isn't required to test byte by byte. In fact, most > > implementations don't which is why memcmp is faster than strcncmp. > > In fact, if memcmp() was safe to use if we only knew the size of one of > the parameters, then there would be no reason for strncmp to exist. > Also, I believe there are some memcmp implementations that start at the end of the memory locations, not the beginning. That is, it compares backwards. Which is also legit for memcmp to do. -- Steve
