On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 09:03:02PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote: > However, I still think that changing memcpy away from years of "it just > works" is an ABI change that should not be taken lightly and IMHO > shouldn't be done in a "stable" release of glibc. Is memcpy called > often enough (and on large enough blocks) that this change makes a real > performance difference (not just on a synthetic memcpy benchmark)?
It's a change in behaviour on x86. Have you verified that overlapping memcpy worked on all other glibc-supported architectures until this point? -- Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
