From owner-freebsd-current Fri May 29 16:43:20 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA02146 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Fri, 29 May 1998 16:43:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.119.24.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA02128 for ; Fri, 29 May 1998 16:43:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA09398; Fri, 29 May 1998 23:42:39 GMT Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id BAA29342; Sat, 30 May 1998 01:42:19 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <19980530014218.62162@follo.net> Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 01:42:19 +0200 From: Eivind Eklund To: Terry Lambert , Mike Smith Cc: joelh@gnu.org, nate@mt.sri.com, rnordier@nordier.com, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Fix for undefined "__error" and discussion of shared object versioning References: <199805292157.OAA01107@dingo.cdrom.com> <199805292330.QAA23999@usr05.primenet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.89.1i In-Reply-To: <199805292330.QAA23999@usr05.primenet.com>; from Terry Lambert on Fri, May 29, 1998 at 11:30:55PM +0000 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Fri, May 29, 1998 at 11:30:55PM +0000, Terry Lambert wrote: > While we are on the subject of portability problems, doesn't anyone > else find it annoying that memcpy() is not guaranteed to work on > overlapping memory ranges, yet we are migrating bcopy() to memcpy() > as time goes on? Grrrr... memmove() is for the cases where you're not guaranteed to be non-overlapping, exctly like bcopy(). memcpy() is for those cases where you know that you don't have overlaps. I don't find this problematic, no. Eivind. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message