remove broken lib/libc/arm/string/memcpy_xscale.S

[Olivier Houchard]

On Mon, Apr 06, 2015 at 10:12:48AM -0700, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
> Warner Losh wrote this message on Mon, Apr 06, 2015 at 09:58 -0600:
> > > On Apr 4, 2015, at 7:52 PM, John-Mark Gurney <jmg at funkthat.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > I would like to remove this file as it does not implement our defined
> > > memcpy.  Per POSIX, overlapping regions passed to memcpy is undefined
> > > behavior.  We have defined it to have the same symatics as memmove.
> > > 
> > > Sample test program:
> > > #include <stdio.h>
> > > #include <string.h>
> > > 
> > > char bufa[512] = "this is a test buffer that should be copied fine.";
> > > int
> > > main()
> > > {
> > > 
> > >        memcpy(&bufa[10], &bufa[0], strlen(&bufa[10]));
> > >        printf("%s\n", bufa);
> > > 
> > >        return 0;
> > > }
> > > 
> > > Output on amd64 HEAD:
> > > this is a this is a test buffer that should be co
> > > 
> > > Output on old armv4 from 9.x:
> > > this is a this is a thst buffethst bufhould beufh
> > > 
> > > If you just look at the file, it is clear that the implementation does
> > > not adjust the copy direction based upon pointers.  We imported the
> > > code from NetBSD, and NetBSD does apparently require memcpy's arguments
> > > to be non-overlapping.
> > > 
> > > I'll remove the file shortly unless someone can prove to me that all
> > > uses of memcpy in our tree do not depend upon our defined behavior
> > > per memcpy(3)'s man page.
> > 
> > Any chance you can fix this implementation instead?
> 
> I don't know arm assembly well enough, nor do I have the time to fix
> it.. I am willing to test any implementations as I have access to
> hardware...
> 
> I guess I should add a test to verify that memcpy behavese like memmove
> to our test suite...
> 

I think the bug is in the manpage, not the code, and we should fix it the way
NetBSD did.

Regards,

Olivier