feat: Use memcpy instead of std::copy#305
Conversation
memcpy can be faster SDB-10043
Summary of ChangesHello @bnbajwa, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed! This pull request introduces a performance optimization by switching from Highlights
Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either
Customization To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here. You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension. Footnotes
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request aims to improve performance by replacing std::copy with std::memcpy in OStreamBase::put_data. While memcpy can be faster, it introduces the risk of undefined behavior if the source and destination memory regions overlap. My feedback suggests using std::memmove instead, which is safe for overlapping regions and generally has comparable performance. This ensures correctness against potential edge cases without sacrificing the intended performance gain.
memcpy can be faster.
std::copyresults in call tomemmoveif compiler can't be certain that the memory regions do not overlap.SDB-10043