On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 20:34:11 +0100
Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> Yes, but let's completely avoid mentioning memcmp in the summary.
>
> bcmp - return 0 if and only if the buffers have identical contents
> @a: pointer to first buffer
> @b: pointer to second buffer
> @len: size of buffers
>
> The
On 13/03/2019 20.01, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 11:51:09 -0700
> Nick Desaulniers wrote:
>
>>>
>>> or have a better comment explaining why its the same.
>>
>> I could add something about "the signedness of the return code not
>> providing any meaning." What would you like to
On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 11:51:09 -0700
Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > This is confusing where the comment says "like memcmp but .." and then
> > just returns memcmp() unmodified. If anything, I would expect to see
> >
> > return !!memcmp(cs, ct, conut);
>
> That's more work than strictly
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 11:40 AM Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 11:17:15 -0700
> Nick Desaulniers wrote:
>
> > +#ifndef __HAVE_ARCH_BCMP
> > +/**
> > + * bcmp - Like memcmp but a non-zero return code simply indicates a
> > non-match.
> > + * @cs: One area of memory.
> > + * @ct:
On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 11:17:15 -0700
Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> +#ifndef __HAVE_ARCH_BCMP
> +/**
> + * bcmp - Like memcmp but a non-zero return code simply indicates a
> non-match.
> + * @cs: One area of memory.
> + * @ct: Another area of memory.
> + * @count: The size of the areas.
> + */
>
A recent optimization in Clang (r355672) lowers comparisons of the
return value of memcmp against zero to comparisons of the return value
of bcmp against zero. This helps some platforms that implement bcmp
more efficiently than memcmp. glibc simply aliases bcmp to memcmp, but
an optimized
6 matches
Mail list logo
