From owner-freebsd-current Mon Aug 4 14:09:38 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA27915 for current-outgoing; Mon, 4 Aug 1997 14:09:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zippy.dyn.ml.org (root@nepal-11.ppp.hooked.net [206.80.8.203]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA27909 for ; Mon, 4 Aug 1997 14:09:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zippy.dyn.ml.org (zippy.dyn.ml.org [127.0.0.1]) by zippy.dyn.ml.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA04967 for ; Mon, 4 Aug 1997 14:09:37 -0700 Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 14:09:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Alex X-Sender: garbanzo@zippy.dyn.ml.org To: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: kernel compile broken In-Reply-To: <199708042039.GAA20704@godzilla.zeta.org.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, 5 Aug 1997, Bruce Evans wrote: > memcmp isn't supported in the kernel. Using bcmp instead is correct > (I forget if the ar order is compatible). This problem is sometimes > maked by gcc inlining memcmp() without warning about the missing > prototype for it. > > memcpy is supported in the kernel, although bcopy is normal, so that > gcc can generate efficient inline code for small copies. The inline > code for bcmp isn't particularly efficient (gcc doesn't do anything > special for small counts...) so little would be gained by using it. It is or it isn't?? - alex