Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 16:02:55 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@NUXI.com> To: Dmitrij Tejblum <tejblum@arc.hq.cti.ru> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: stpcpy() Message-ID: <19991031160255.E2388@relay.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <199910312349.CAA02684@tejblum.pp.ru> References: <19991031145049.A90745@dragon.nuxi.com> <199910312349.CAA02684@tejblum.pp.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 02:49:24AM +0300, Dmitrij Tejblum wrote: > > Bruce hit the nail right on the head -- people are making assumptions > > with out know what their compiler is doing. > > You omitted following Bruce's words: > > > > In practice, gcc seems to only inline strlen(). What does that have to do with the wisdom I was extracting from BDE's statements? A LOT of people are trying to optimize things with out knowing what their compiler does. > There is nothing that prevent to clone the highly optimized ASM strcpy() > to create a highly optimized ASM stpcpy(). Except most application developers don't make you build a new libc to add an ASM file they provide. > Really? Why? My colleagues use Windows and occasionally use stpcpy(), > just because it is CONVENIENT and obviously cannot make their program > slower. If the program is slower on FreeBSD (or even not compile), this is > not their fault. Bull crap. If an application writer uses non-standard functions it *is* their fault. -- -- David (obrien@NUXI.com) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19991031160255.E2388>