Re: [OT] Re: memcpy() vs. for() performance
From: Case - (no_at_no.no)
Date: 07/01/04
- Previous message: Alan Balmer: "Re: double free"
- In reply to: Dan Pop: "Re: [OT] Re: memcpy() vs. for() performance"
- Next in thread: Dan Pop: "Re: [OT] Re: memcpy() vs. for() performance"
- Reply: Dan Pop: "Re: [OT] Re: memcpy() vs. for() performance"
- Reply: red floyd: "Re: [OT] Re: memcpy() vs. for() performance"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 20:55:28 +0200
Dan Pop wrote:
> In <40e40d8c$0$93324$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> Case <no@no.no> writes:
>>Yep, one other good reason to always use memcpy(). However, how was
>>the saying again .... "Never say always!" :-)
>
>
> Another failed attempt at humour...
Humour is in the eye of the beholder.
- Previous message: Alan Balmer: "Re: double free"
- In reply to: Dan Pop: "Re: [OT] Re: memcpy() vs. for() performance"
- Next in thread: Dan Pop: "Re: [OT] Re: memcpy() vs. for() performance"
- Reply: Dan Pop: "Re: [OT] Re: memcpy() vs. for() performance"
- Reply: red floyd: "Re: [OT] Re: memcpy() vs. for() performance"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|