cvs commit: src/sys/alpha/alpha support.s src/sys/i386/i386 identcpu.c support.s src/sys/i386/include md_var.h src/sys/i386/isa npx.c src/sys/ia64/ia64 support.s src/sys/powerpc/powerpc bcopy.c src/sys/sparc64/sparc64 support.S ...

Kris Kennaway kris at
Fri Apr 4 13:26:30 PST 2003

On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 10:22:23AM -0800, David Schultz wrote:
> Thus spake Kris Kennaway <kris at>:
> > On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 09:29:55AM -0800, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> > 
> > >   Define ovbcopy() as a macro which expands to the equivalent bcopy() call,
> > >   to take care of the KAME IPv6 code which needs ovbcopy() because NetBSD's
> > >   bcopy() doesn't handle overlap like ours.
> > 
> > Was this for optimization reasons, hysterical raisins, or some other reason?
> The ovbcopy-->bcopy conversion doesn't make things any faster or
> slower, but it does make some minor optimizations impossible to
> implement in the future.  I'm not sure I agree with the changes,
> but I don't violently disagree either.

I was actually referring to NetBSD's different implementation in my
question.  Sorry, it wasn't clear from my email.  To rephase it, why
do NetBSD have ovbcopy() and bcopy() as separate functions?


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :

More information about the cvs-all mailing list