Garrett D'Amore wrote: > There is an assertion you've made that "strcpy" is only used to copy a > handful of bytes. While this *might* be true, I'm less convinced that > it is. It would be interesting to profile some big web servers, etc. > and see often strcpy gets called. It seesm (to me at least), that this > is an oft-called function, and its irrelevance for performance is not > (to me at least, again) immediately obvious.
The assertion is that (compared with bcopy and memcpy), it moves only a handful of bytes at a time. The optimizations are likely interesting if you're moving kilobytes around at once, but who does that with strcpy? And how is even a modest gain in performance in strcpy worth introducing silent data corruption to existing applications? I just don't understand that trade-off. -- James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ opensolaris-code mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
