3 ms·
Note that I mentioned the ordinary memcpy (with a single c) there briefly. memccpy should under no circumstances be faster than strcpy for "string multiplying",
by eMSF 7y ago
Note that I mentioned the ordinary memcpy (with a single c) there briefly. memccpy should under no circumstances be faster than strcpy for "string multiplying", as it holds no advantages over it in that use.
- johnisgood 7y agoOuch, my mistake. In any case, could we sum it up? In what cases should memccpy be used over, say, str{n,l}cpy, or even memcpy, and is it in conflict with the article's recommendation or its statement on performance regarding memccpy vs. the alternatives?