Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:29609 comp.sys.att:9804
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!virtech!cpcahil
From: cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.sys.att
Subject: Re: bcopy and bzero on AT&T sysV
Keywords: bcopy bzero AT&T
Message-ID: <1990Jun15.114408.25057@virtech.uucp>
Date: 15 Jun 90 11:44:08 GMT
References: <213@cti1.UUCP> <1990Jun14.233837.22318@virtech.uucp> <16891@haddock.ima.isc.com>
Reply-To: cpcahil@virtech.UUCP (Conor P. Cahill)
Organization: Virtual Technologies Inc., Sterling VA
Lines: 19

In article <16891@haddock.ima.isc.com> karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer) writes:
>In article <1990Jun14.233837.22318@virtech.uucp> cpcahil@virtech.UUCP (Conor P. Cahill) writes:
>>Note that memcpy is not guarranteed to handle overlapping moves, while
>>bcopy is assumed to by some programs.
>
>Despite the fact that bcopy is also not guaranteed to handle them (at least
>not in the 4.3BSD man page), and often doesn't.
>
>It's better to use the mem-functions directly rather than the b-functions,
>since the former are part of the ANSI Standard library, and since they allow

This is true if you are developing code.  However, if you are just porting
code you normally don't want to make zillions of changes when they can be
taken care of with a simple #define.

-- 
Conor P. Cahill            (703)430-9247        Virtual Technologies, Inc.,
uunet!virtech!cpcahil                           46030 Manekin Plaza, Suite 160
                                                Sterling, VA 22170