Thread: memcpy and its derivatives

Hello,

this subject is rather about memcpy_s which is known as secure copy because it actually check for null pointers and overlapping sections. However my first question would be where is it really implemented and how can i use it?
Quick googling for "where is memcpy_s" revealed that in order to use it I should include string.h and use at least c11 so I did but gcc still complains:

Code:

 warning: implicit declaration of function memcpy_s; did you mean memcpy?

PS: I compile on linux.

I have couple of more questions:
1. Is memcpy_s part of the standard?
2. If I want to implement my own version what should I follow and comply with?
3. Should memcpy_s enable copies inside array or memory blocks? I mean if I have an array of ten elements and use memcpy_s to copy last two bytes into first two bytes should it be allowed?

The docs point out:

As with all bounds-checked functions, memcpy_s is only guaranteed to be available if __STDC_LIB_EXT1__ is defined by the implementation and if the user defines __STDC_WANT_LIB_EXT1__ to the integer constant 1 before including string.h.

Yes, as of C11, memcpy_s part of the standard.

I doubt you want to implement your own version. It is conceptually quite simple, but several compilers resort to inline assembler to implement memcpy most efficiently for a given CPU. If your concern is about safely implementing memcpy in a system without memcpy_s, what seems better is to consider a function that first tests all that is required before calling memcpy. That is, if one tests the pre-requisites, memcpy can be quite safe to do.

While memcpy_s could be used inside an array, you may need to consider memmove instead (and the related memmove_s). There is a difference between moving some section from the end to the beginning of a block, vs moving, say, the last 2/3rds of a block to it's beginning.

@Niccolo but when I ask gcc to compile sing c11 it complains about unknown memcpy_s. So it is not defined.

Is __STDC_LIB_EXT1__ defined?

Is this in your header:

#define __STDC_WANT_LIB_EXT1__ 1

I don't think gcc supports the optional bounds checking interfaces. And if I'm not mistaken Microsoft's implementations don't completely follow the C11 standard, which is understandable since Microsoft doesn't truly support anything but C90.

@jimblumberg has a point.

I have reports that it depends on the platform and configuration. For example, in MinGW-w64 it is available, but in MinGW it isn't.

It is an extension, which is to say you can't assume it would be portable or even likely available.