From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27114 invoked by alias); 29 Jul 2008 22:11:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 27106 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Jul 2008 22:11:52 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from bluesmobile.specifix.com (HELO bluesmobile.specifix.com) (216.129.118.140) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 22:11:35 +0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (bluesmobile.specifix.com [216.129.118.140]) by bluesmobile.specifix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67FA03C053; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:11:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: RFA: use memcpy, not a loop From: Michael Snyder To: tromey@redhat.com Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <1217369416.3549.619.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1217369416.3549.619.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 22:11:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1217369493.3549.621.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.3 (2.10.3-7.fc7) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-07/txt/msg00555.txt.bz2 On Tue, 2008-07-29 at 15:10 -0700, Michael Snyder wrote: > On Tue, 2008-07-29 at 13:13 -0600, Tom Tromey wrote: > > While debugging on the python branch I ran into a couple of loops that > > can be replaced with memcpy. I find that this is easier to read and > > it makes debugging a bit friendlier. > > > > Built and tested on the compile farm (x86-64). > > Ok? > > Sure. Looks like you can nuke "tmp" from the function too... > > No need to re-submit if you decide to make that change. > But doesn't each of those functions have *two* such loops? Oh, never mind, I see that the 2nd loop is not a simple copy. And so it still requires 'tmp'.