Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett <mj...@srcf.ucam.org> said: > 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?
How is that relevant? If the behavior changes on only some architectures, then it is okay? -- Chris Adams <cmad...@hiwaay.net> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
