Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!sdrc!scjones
From: scjones@sdrc.UUCP (Larry Jones)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: bug in Turbo C 1.5
Message-ID: <197@sdrc.UUCP>
Date: 27 Jan 88 04:11:39 GMT
References: <5298@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <2490@emory.uucp>
Organization: Structural Dynamics Research Corp., Cincinnati
Lines: 15
Summary: Don't blame ANSI

In article <2490@emory.uucp>, platt@emory.uucp (Dan Platt) writes:
> 
> The version 1.5 fixes a "bug" in the 1.0 version by NOT checking for overwrites
> in the memcopy function.  The memmove function preserves the old (safe) 
> technique.  [by following a standard like ANSI a lot of inferiorities are
> introduced]

Sorry, but I get tired of reading statements like these.  For the last time,
ANSI did not REQUIRE anyone to change the way memcpy works.  ANSI does not say
that memcpy can't check for overlapping moves and do them correctly, it merely
affirms the fact that many implementations don't, quite a lot of people expect
memcpy to be blindingly fast, and thus said that not checking was OK.  For
those who need a function to handle overlapping moves correctly, ANSI added
memmove.  So quit blaming ANSI and start blaming { Microsoft, Borland, ... }
'cause THEY'RE the ones that decided to change their implementations.