Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #19569 > unrolled thread

Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient John Reye <jononanon@googlemail.com> - 2012-04-12 09:01 -0700
    Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient John Reye <jononanon@googlemail.com> - 2012-04-12 09:05 -0700
      Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2012-04-12 09:38 -0700
        Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient John Reye <jononanon@googlemail.com> - 2012-04-12 11:32 -0700
          Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-04-12 14:41 -0400
            Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2012-04-12 18:51 +0000
              Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com - 2012-04-13 03:46 -0700
                Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2012-04-13 14:51 +0000
              Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-04-13 12:38 -0400
                Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-04-15 19:47 +0300
    Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2012-04-12 09:09 -0700
      Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient John Reye <jononanon@googlemail.com> - 2012-04-12 11:13 -0700
        Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2012-04-12 18:20 -0700
    Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-04-12 18:13 +0200
      Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-04-12 12:47 -0400
      Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient John Reye <jononanon@googlemail.com> - 2012-04-12 11:22 -0700
        Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-04-13 22:37 +0200
          Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-04-15 20:15 +0300
            Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-04-15 23:30 +0200
    Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2012-04-12 09:20 -0700
    Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2012-04-12 18:34 +0200
      Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-04-12 18:00 +0000
        Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com - 2012-04-13 03:50 -0700
      Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient John Reye <jononanon@googlemail.com> - 2012-04-12 11:24 -0700
        Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-04-12 13:08 -0700
    Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-04-12 12:50 -0400
      Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient John Reye <jononanon@googlemail.com> - 2012-04-12 11:30 -0700
        Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-04-12 15:55 -0400
    Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2012-04-12 11:41 -0700
      Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2012-04-12 19:08 +0000
    Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-04-12 21:07 +0100
      Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-04-12 20:35 -0400
        Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-04-13 11:38 +0100
          Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-04-13 09:52 -0400
            Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-04-13 17:56 +0100
        Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-04-13 12:56 -0400
          Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-04-13 14:48 -0400
            Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-04-14 07:22 -0700
    Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2012-04-12 21:23 -0400
      Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Quentin Pope <qp19433@hotmail.NOSPAM.com> - 2012-04-13 16:52 +0000
    Re: Alternative libraries for C, that are efficient Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-04-13 23:24 +0200

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#19627

Am 04/12/2012 06:01 PM, schrieb John Reye:
> Example:            char * strcat ( char * destination, const char *
> source );
> Return Value:     destination is returned.
> 
> How useless is that! I already know the distination, in the first
> place.
> Why not return a pointer to the end of the concatenated string, or the
> size of the string. This would cost the library no extra performance
> cost whatsoever!

ah, perhaps I found a library that would fit your needs better. How
about POSIX' memccpy?

(((char*)memccpy(destination, source, 0, SIZE_MAX))-1)

should do what you want, I think.

(You'd have to be sure that source is 0-terminated for this to work,
but that you'd have to do for strcat, too)

Jens

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web