On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, Francois Gouget wrote:
> Other observations:
> * my naive strcpy/strcat implementation seems more efficient than the
> one in the glibc! That's pretty weird.
If you have glibc from binary package compiled with optimizations for
other processor that you have, it is possible.
> * cpycat is much more efficient in this type of scenario. That's not
> very surprising of course. Why does the C library have such braindead
> functions as strcpy and strcat?
Since we are talking about catenating strings only (no %d and family),
then I would suggest combining speed of cpycat (in glibc there's stpcpy)
and ease of use of sprintf and use something like that:
#include <stdarg.h>
char *strpcpymore(char *buf, ...)
{
const char *p;
va_list ap;
va_start(ap, buf);
while ((p = va_arg(ap, const char *)))
buf = stpcpy(buf, p);
va_end(ap);
return buf;
}
Then we could write:
strpcpymore(buffer, "path", "/", "file", ".", "ext", NULL);
And make everybody happy.
Michal Miroslaw
