Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 03:40:34 +0300 From: Dmitrij Tejblum <tejblum@arc.hq.cti.ru> To: obrien@NUXI.com Cc: Dmitrij Tejblum <tejblum@arc.hq.cti.ru>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: stpcpy() Message-ID: <199911020040.DAA03020@tejblum.pp.ru> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 31 Oct 1999 16:02:55 PST." <19991031160255.E2388@relay.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"David O'Brien" wrote: > On Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 02:49:24AM +0300, Dmitrij Tejblum wrote: > > > Bruce hit the nail right on the head -- people are making assumptions > > > with out know what their compiler is doing. > > > > You omitted following Bruce's words: > > > > > > In practice, gcc seems to only inline strlen(). > > What does that have to do with the wisdom I was extracting from BDE's > statements? A LOT of people are trying to optimize things with out > knowing what their compiler does. That do mostly defeat this "wisdom" in this particular case. The part you quoted talked about an imaginary compiler. As I wrote in the previous mail, on a real non-braindamaged compiler stpcpy() cannot be slower than the strcpy()/strlen() combination. It is quite obvious for any professional programmer. > > Really? Why? My colleagues use Windows and occasionally use stpcpy(), > > just because it is CONVENIENT and obviously cannot make their program > > slower. If the program is slower on FreeBSD (or even not compile), this is > > not their fault. > > Bull crap. If an application writer uses non-standard functions it *is* > their fault. Next day you will tell us to not use strdup(). Don't make me laugh. Dima To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199911020040.DAA03020>