Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Mon, 2 Feb 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> This isn't a bug, and I see no reason to clutter the code just to shut
> >> up valgrind.
> > Isn't memcpy on overlapping (even entirely overlapping) buffers undefined
> > behavior unless the count is 0?
> The reason that the spec describes overlapped memcpy as undefined is
> that it does not want to restrict which direction the copy occurs in
> (proceeding from lower to higher memory addresses or vice versa).
> memmove is constrained to do the copy in the direction that will avoid
> failure when the source and destination partially overlap. But memcpy
> is expected to do whichever is fastest on the particular architecture,
> without concern for possible overlap. (Offhand I've never heard of a
> machine where memcpy doesn't work lower-to-higher, but maybe there is
> However, when the source and destination buffers are the same, it does
> not matter which direction you copy in; you are picking up and putting
> down the same bytes at the same addresses no matter what order you
> process the bytes in. There is no implementation in existence that will
> produce an unwanted result.
> If you want to argue about dependencies on implementation details that
> are theoretically undefined according to the ANSI C spec, we have tons
> more beyond this one. F'r instance, depending on twos-complement
> arithmetic is illegal per spec also ...
Isn't memmove() for overlaping regions? That's what my BSD manual page
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly