Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Brian G. Lucas" <bagel99@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Computer architects leaving Intel...
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2024 14:09:52 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <vb52i0$2v5qk$1@dont-email.me>
References: <2024Aug30.161204@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>
 <memo.20240830164247.19028y@jgd.cix.co.uk> <vasruo$id3b$1@dont-email.me>
 <2024Aug30.195831@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <vat5ap$jthk$2@dont-email.me>
 <vaunhb$vckc$1@dont-email.me> <vautmu$vr5r$1@dont-email.me>
 <2024Aug31.170347@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <vavpnh$13tj0$2@dont-email.me>
 <vb2hir$1ju7q$1@dont-email.me> <8lcadjhnlcj5se1hrmo232viiccjk5alu4@4ax.com>
 <vb3k0m$1rth7$1@dont-email.me>
 <17d615c6a9e70e9fabe1721c55cfa176@www.novabbs.org>
 <vb4udk$2ugqg$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2024 21:09:53 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="aba5776a8df2ca87015643ecf11d7eee";
	logging-data="3118932"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/lk6R62SZ783xYCU1PilVa"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ESWKIC5keNB/1H6bJOO5N66b57c=
In-Reply-To: <vb4udk$2ugqg$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 2383

I have the 1978 K&R.  There appears to be no mention of memcpy().

On 9/2/24 12:59 PM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> MitchAlsup1 <mitchalsup@aol.com> schrieb:
>> On Mon, 2 Sep 2024 5:55:34 +0000, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>>
>>> George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> schrieb:
>>>
>>>> I'm not going to argue about whether UB in code is wrong.  The
>>>> question I have concerns what to do with something that explicitly is
>>>> mentioned as UB in some standard N, but was not addressed in previous
>>>> standards.
>>>>
>>>> Was it always UB?  Or should it be considered ID until it became UB?
>>>
>>> Can you give an exapmple?
>>
>> Memcopy() with overlapping pointers.
> 
> Does anybody have the first edition of K&R around to check what is
> explicity stated there?
> 
> If both were intended to have the same functionality, it would have
> been strange to define both.