From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue May 28 03:27:35 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id DAA16378
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 28 May 1996 03:27:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.19])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id DAA16373
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.org>; Tue, 28 May 1996 03:27:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from bde@localhost) by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.6.12/8.6.9) id UAA11893; Tue, 28 May 1996 20:13:03 +1000
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 20:13:03 +1000
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Message-Id: <199605281013.UAA11893@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
To: bde@zeta.org.au, charnier@lirmm.fr, hackers@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: strcpy, strcat: not the same look & feel.
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>>Which one is faster, the old version or the one with this patch applied?
>>Libc uses another one (assembler) but this could at least make libkern
>>faster. Or is it even better to use the libc's version? I'm not really sure

I forgot to answer the main question.  libkern shouldn't be changed since:
(1) strcpy is so rarely used in the kernel that its speed isn't important.
    That's why libkern/strcpy.c is a copy of the generic strcpy.c and not
    the i386 strcpy.S.
(2) gcc inlines strcpy() (unless you compile with -O0 or -fno-buitin), so
    the libkern version is almost never used.

Bruce