Am 10.03.2017 um 09:18 schrieb Jeff King:
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 01:14:16AM +0100, René Scharfe wrote:
2. Ones which just copy a single object, like:
memcpy(&dst, &src, sizeof(dst));
Perhaps we should be using struct assignment like:
dst = src;
here. It's safer and it should give the compiler more room to
optimize. The only downside is that if you have pointers, it is
easy to write "dst = src" when you meant "*dst = *src".
Compilers can usually inline memcpy(3) calls, but assignments are
shorter and more pleasing to the eye, and we get a type check for
free. How about this?
Yeah, I mostly wasn't sure how people felt about "shorter and more
pleasing". It _is_ shorter and there's less to get wrong. But the
memcpy() screams "hey, I am making a copy" and is idiomatic to at least
a certain generation of C programmers.
I guess something like COPY(dst, src) removes the part that you can get
wrong, while still screaming copy. It's not idiomatic either, but at
least it stands out. I dunno.
Yes ...
I think this misses the other two cases: (*dst, src) and (*dst, *src).
... and that's why I left them out. You can't get dst vs. *dst wrong
with structs (at least not without the compiler complaining); only safe
transformations are included in this round.
René
