llvm dev - Apr 2008 - [LLVMdev] Is there a reason why memcmp isn't an intrinsic?

Since you have memcpy, memmove, and memset in there, I was wondering why 
memcmp wasn't there as well. It seems obvious - which makes me think 
that if it's not there, then there must be some reason for it.

-- Talin

On Apr 13, 2008, at 12:40 PM, Talin wrote:
> Since you have memcpy, memmove, and memset in there, I was wondering  
> why
> memcmp wasn't there as well. It seems obvious - which makes me think
> that if it's not there, then there must be some reason for it.
Why do you want it to be an intrinsic?  What does that provide?

-Chris

Chris Lattner wrote:
> On Apr 13, 2008, at 12:40 PM, Talin wrote:
>
>   
>> Since you have memcpy, memmove, and memset in there, I was wondering  
>> why
>> memcmp wasn't there as well. It seems obvious - which makes me
think
>> that if it's not there, then there must be some reason for it.
>>     
>
> Why do you want it to be an intrinsic?  What does that provide?
>   
I can't really answer that question, since I don't know why memcpy, et 
al, are intrinsics either. I was assuming that whatever rationale made 
it beneficial to make the mem.* functions intrinsics would apply to 
memcmp as well...but perhaps this is not the case?
> -Chris
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmde