From: adalee AT sendit DOT sendit DOT nodak DOT edu (Adam W Lee)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Q: argument order in memory copy routine
Date: 9 Sep 1997 01:26:51 GMT
Organization: SENDIT - North Dakota's Educational Network
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <5v28kr$msq$2@news.sendit.nodak.edu>
References: <3413F844 DOT 13A4 AT rug DOT ac DOT be> <5v20oe$qc5 AT sjx-ixn10 DOT ix DOT netcom DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sendit-2.sendit.nodak.edu
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Precedence: bulk

: > It seems it's impossible to be consistent with those. But following the
: > oldest one and the most standard one, i.e. memcpy seems the best. Any
: > other opinions?

: Each function performs a specific function, as I outlined above. This
: should be clear from the info page descriptions. memcpy will -not- work
: for accessing conventional memory.

I don't think he's asking which to use, but rather if he were to write a
mem copy routine which argument order he should use...  I would agree that
memcpy's order seems most intuitive, but that may be just because it's the
first I ever used.

--
  
  +--- --  --   -     -
  | [pHiXx/VorteX]
  : phixx AT usa DOT net

  :

  .