On 02/11/2011 11:12 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > Il giorno ven, 11/02/2011 alle 10.55 +0100, Michael Haubenwallner ha > scritto: >> >> what do you think of working around the memcpy troubles with >> glibc-2.13 by >> simply redirecting memcpy to memmove within glibc, either >> unconditionally or >> optional/temporary (via USE-flag?) until everyone uses memmove where >> necessary? > > That unless things start crashing down nobody will fix the issues at > all. > > We're not talking a last minute change! memcpy() *always* documented not > to use overlapping memory areas.
Yes, *documented*, I'm aware of that. But both that document as well as uncountable lines of source code are rather old. While the source code isn't that large a problem for Gentoo, existing binaries without source code still are. The questions simply are: *) Does anyone really need memcpy when there is memmove? *) Is it worth the effort to bug everyone to replace memcpy by memmove in their existing applications, with or without investigating that memcpy doesn't suffice? /haubi/ -- Michael Haubenwallner Gentoo on a different level
