Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="tom_usenet, post: 1459624"] It was part of the C standard, and, along with the rest of the C standard library (with minor changes), it became part of the C++ standard. And in what sense is std::copy is a type-safe alternative to the non-typesafe function, std::memcpy. In addition, std::copy works with overlapped source and destination ranges, whilst memcpy doesn't, so, really, I suppose std::copy is an alternative to std::memmove rather than memcpy. It should be, but it is a quality of implementation issue. It's up to your compiler vendor and how much time they've spent tweaking it. You might want to read this: [URL]http://www.cuj.com/documents/s=7990/cujcexp1910alexandr/alexandr.htm[/URL] double source[10] = {blah}; double dest[10]; std::memcpy(dest, source, 10 * sizeof *source); memcpy is a bit dangerous, since it can't handle overlapping ranges, and it isn't typesafe. memmove can handle overlapping ranges, and hence tends to be used by std::copy for copying POD types. My benchmarks had std::copy and std::memcpy very similar on GCC: copy : 1.11 memcpy : 1.093 A difference of a couple of percent isn't something you should worry about. Tom [/QUOTE]