On 04/06/2017 10:49 PM, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> Am 06.04.2017 um 19:31 schrieb René Scharfe:
>> Am 06.04.2017 um 18:33 schrieb Johannes Sixt:
>>> Am 06.04.2017 um 17:42 schrieb Martin Liška:
>>>> +static inline void *sane_memmove(void *dest, const void *src, size_t n)
>>>> +{
>>>> +    if (n > 0)
>>>> +        return memmove(dest, src, n);
>>>> +    else
>>>> +        return dest;
>>>> +}
>>>
>>> Huh? memmove with n == 0 is well-defined. This wrapper is pointless.
>>
>> memmove(3) with NULL pointers is undefined.
> 
> Then don't hide this helper behind a macro with a suspiciously similar name. Using the name sane_mmemove at the call site is preferable. memmove_or_null or something similar perhaps even more so.
> 
> -- Hannes
> 

Good. There's tested v4.

Martin