Okay, Now I already checked all memcpy and strcpy for any possible
overlapping issue. Basically memcpy and strcpy are faster than memmove, so
global replacement is probably not necessary. Here I attached my suggested
patch. Please tell me if it crashes anything.
Best,
--
Mengjuei Hsieh, Molecular Biology & Biochem, Univ. of California Irvine.
> From: MengJuei Hsieh <mengjueh.uci.edu>
> Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 16:30:06 -0700
> To: AMBER Developers Mailing List <amber-developers.ambermd.org>, case
> <case.biomaps.rutgers.edu>
> Conversation: [AMBER-Developers] LeAP's memcpy and strcpy
> Subject: Re: [AMBER-Developers] LeAP's memcpy and strcpy
>
> Hi,
>
> No, I didn't checked all memcpy and strcpy last night, what I did was to fire
> up valgrind to check the running tests. After a glance of the code, there're
> still several place that might be having the problem. I'll do it if time
> permits.
>
> Best,
> --
> Mengjuei Hsieh, Molecular Biology & Biochem, Univ. of California Irvine.
>
>> From: case <case.biomaps.rutgers.edu>
>> Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 15:14:53 -0400
>> To: AMBER Developers Mailing List <amber-developers.ambermd.org>
>> I thought it would be something like this...thanks for catching that. Do
>> you think you have caught all the problem strcpy() usages? I was thinking of
>> substituting our own version of strcpy(), that uses memmove() under the hood.
>> But that is probably not such a good idea if there are only a few places that
>> are troublesome.
_______________________________________________
AMBER-Developers mailing list
AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
Received on Mon May 31 2010 - 19:00:03 PDT