We currently don't have Copy::disjoint_bytes. The lack of this function leads us to use bare memcpy in many places instead of using Copy, effectively denormalizing the use of Copy. Folks forget it even exists, because bare memcpy (and even the occasional bare memmove instead of Copy::conjoint_bytes) is so common in our code.
Also change uses of bare memcpy to use the new function. Also change bare memmove's to Copy::conjoint_bytes.
We should also have an _atomic variant, to go with the existing Copy::conjoint_jbytes_atomic.
Also change uses of bare memcpy to use the new function. Also change bare memmove's to Copy::conjoint_bytes.
We should also have an _atomic variant, to go with the existing Copy::conjoint_jbytes_atomic.
- is blocked by
-
JDK-8214976 Warn about uses of functions replaced for portability
-
- Resolved
-
- relates to
-
JDK-8219010 Copy class should use templates
-
- Closed
-
-
-
- Open
-
-
-
- Open
-