Re: Faster StrNCpy

From: "Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>
To: <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc>
Cc: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Sergey E(dot) Koposov" <math(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)ru>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Faster StrNCpy
Date: 2006-10-03 11:56:57
Message-ID: E1539E0ED7043848906A8FF995BDA57901626693@m0143.s-mxs.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches


> > > I'm still interested to experiment with MemSet-then-strlcpy for
> > > namestrcpy, but given the LENCPY results this may be a loser too.
> > Um, why not strlcpy then MemSet the rest ?
>
> That's what strncpy() is supposed to be doing.

Yes, but it obviously does not in some ports, and that was the main
problem
as I interpreted it.

Andreas

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Zdenek Kotala 2006-10-03 12:41:41 PG qsort vs. Solaris
Previous Message mark 2006-10-03 09:56:11 Re: Faster StrNCpy

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Benny Amorsen 2006-10-03 13:21:12 Re: Faster StrNCpy
Previous Message mark 2006-10-03 09:56:11 Re: Faster StrNCpy