From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/3624
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Strake <strake888@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general
Subject: Re: Thinking about release
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 23:30:47 -0500
Message-ID: <CAL3m8eA-D==UjssLjxbFNpisQM=xaTo=KQHRmzcp1S-=XOnfOw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20130613012517.GA5859@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
	<CAPfzE3a0h=2NFqgnBqXj3J2q7VgYjqZ19Ab=0LAe5u5SvWXHaA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130613014314.GC29800@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
	<CAPfzE3aerGrdmTkj15o0CTVtt8TZpTyAnSAj1Joau+Jb_cNGUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130709053711.GO29800@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
	<CAPfzE3ZTxynUeJjq7KWijZGhsV==NymW4vqLhnQbEYCXRxVf-g@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1373517062 28902 80.91.229.3 (11 Jul 2013 04:31:02 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 04:31:02 +0000 (UTC)
To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Original-X-From: musl-return-3628-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Thu Jul 11 06:31:04 2013
Return-path: <musl-return-3628-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com>
Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org
Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200])
	by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <musl-return-3628-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com>)
	id 1Ux8Wy-0001qA-Cr
	for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 06:31:00 +0200
Original-Received: (qmail 3841 invoked by uid 550); 11 Jul 2013 04:30:59 -0000
Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:musl@lists.openwall.com>
List-Help: <mailto:musl-help@lists.openwall.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:musl-unsubscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:musl-subscribe@lists.openwall.com>
Original-Received: (qmail 3833 invoked from network); 11 Jul 2013 04:30:59 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        bh=XRje65c6qhtAIwbSGMtBj575Si6Tb51aJd7lSxtWU+8=;
        b=h+enbvpui6d9uYd40qTaIPpRKNv4zK+aESydiw0Lb+h4zDsigaTNVX5fXqrJl1pT9A
         6Vw8W8/YEueMaWt5pN8zMaiUFWOqSfon6vnqBJurWfvRxNT+Dp2LrFkbXrziUcOH0g9h
         j/vbhFDx76llsnMWavW9V1SLFiE0OlEMioKkhNngR9/FgNQXemhi2PMzurpNH5Laa2iu
         pYs5PoYuxkR6yxrXSVu1eggAp6AQdW3QETHfAKjCL1yIII8EUrSXEHHIBi431ukxwdXk
         JFRLfaobh9Aq5UsmDk9DgL5rJtjeJiSRyEPLNEoxIVoMkOCqDtJ1Ee2S4PppMk//QP7f
         U/5g==
X-Received: by 10.194.60.5 with SMTP id d5mr20393903wjr.26.1373517048050; Wed,
 10 Jul 2013 21:30:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAPfzE3ZTxynUeJjq7KWijZGhsV==NymW4vqLhnQbEYCXRxVf-g@mail.gmail.com>
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:3624
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/3624>

On 09/07/2013, Andre Renaud <andre@bluewatersys.com> wrote:
> I wasn't too sure on memmove, but I've seen a reasonable amount of
> code which just uses memmove as standard (rather than memcpy), to
> avoid the possibility of overlapping regions. Not a great policy

Why? What loss with memmove? That it takes 1.0125 times as long as
memcpy, other than when memcpy might just trash the array or summon
nasal demons anyhow?