On Jan 26, 2016, at 11:08 AM, Andrew Haley <a...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 01/26/2016 07:04 PM, John Rose wrote: >> Unsafe.copyMemory bottoms out to Copy::conjoint_memory_atomic. >> IMO that's a better starting point than memcpy. Perhaps it can be >> given an additional parameter (or overloading) to specify a swap size. > > OK, but conjoint_memory_atomic doesn't guarantee that destination > words won't be torn if their source is misaligned: in fact it > guarantees that they will will be.
That's a good point, and argues for a new function with the stronger guarantee. Actually, it would be perfectly reasonable to strengthen the guarantee on the existing function. I don't think anyone will care about the slight performance change, especially since it is probably favorable. Since it's Unsafe, they are not supposed to care, either. — John
