https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95556
--- Comment #9 from Jeff Davis ---
I still feel like the documentation is misleading on this point.
Regardless, it doesn't seem like you think there is any bug here, so go ahead
and close.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95556
--- Comment #7 from Jeff Davis ---
"...built-in functions are optimized into the normal string functions like
memcpy if the last argument is (size_t) -1..."
My reading of the document lead me to believe that a last argument of -1
*would* be a no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95556
--- Comment #3 from Jeff Davis ---
Original larger case was discovered in PostgreSQL:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/99b2eab335c1592c925d8143979c8e9e81e1575f.ca...@j-davis.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95556
--- Comment #2 from Jeff Davis ---
Created attachment 48688
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48688&action=edit
Example 3
Another example that works (i.e. builtin is properly replaced by memcpy as
described in the document).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95556
--- Comment #1 from Jeff Davis ---
Created attachment 48687
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48687&action=edit
Example 1
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: pg...@j-davis.com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 48686
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48686&action=edit
Example 2
GCC's Object Size Checking doc says:
"There are b
