Greg Stark writes:
>> Yeah, it looks like the memcpy is sometimes unnecessary because res and
>> ptr point to the same place. It might be worth cleaning up just to
>> avoid the valgrind warning, but I doubt it would save any noticeable
>> number of cycles.
> I assume valgrind is warning about it
> Yeah, it looks like the memcpy is sometimes unnecessary because res and
> ptr point to the same place. It might be worth cleaning up just to
> avoid the valgrind warning, but I doubt it would save any noticeable
> number of cycles.
I assume valgrind is warning about it because memcpy's behaviou
Gregory Stark writes:
> Was just running the regression tests under valgrind and aside from the usual
> false positives caused by structure padding I noticed this:
> ==19366== Source and destination overlap in memcpy(0x4BB7FC0, 0x4BB7FC0, 12)
> ==19366==at 0x4026B12: memcpy (mc_replace_strmem
Was just running the regression tests under valgrind and aside from the usual
false positives caused by structure padding I noticed this:
==19366== Source and destination overlap in memcpy(0x4BB7FC0, 0x4BB7FC0, 12)
==19366==at 0x4026B12: memcpy (mc_replace_strmem.c:402)
==19366==by 0x8389
