On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 12:18 AM, Robert Baron <robertbartlettba...@gmail.com> wrote: > Second question: > > Doesn't memcpy allow for overlapping memory, but strcpy does not? Isn't > this why memcpy is preferred over strcpy? >[...]
The reason memcpy() is preferred over strcpy() is the same as the reason strncpy() is preferred over strcpy(). memcpy() is actually considered a no-no in some circles, and perhaps correctly so. (Especially in C++, where classes are supposed to define their own copying, and it's almost always more optimal to explicitly copy each member instead of calculating the size, mass copying, and going back and overwriting the members that are subject to issues like deep copy. Remember that memcpy() is able to copy an odd number of bytes, so the size calculation contains a bit more than is obvious to the programmer.) -- Joel Rees Be careful where you see conspiracy. Look first in your own heart. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-security-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caar43iof7wca3zugtzewvhddjzk98ava2oatgw_mavruoyz...@mail.gmail.com
