I have a draft version of the C standard (ISO/IEC 9899:1999), and it has some fun things to say about that call. For starters, it mentions (§7.21.1/2) in regards to memcpy
that
Where an argument declared as size_t
n specifies the length of the array for a
function, n can have the value zero on a call to that function. Unless explicitly stated
otherwise in the description of a particular function in this subclause, pointer arguments
on such a call shall still have valid values, as described in 7.1.4. On such a call, a
function that locates a character finds no occurrence, a function that compares two
character sequences returns zero, and a function that copies characters copies zero
characters.
The reference indicated here points to this:
If an argument to a function has an invalid value (such as a value
outside the domain of the function, or a pointer outside the address space of the program,
or a null pointer, or a pointer to non-modifiable storage when the corresponding
parameter is not const-qualified) or a type (after promotion) not expected by a function
with variable number of arguments, the behavior is undefined.
So it looks like according to the C spec, calling
memcpy(0, 0, 0)
results in undefined behavior, because null pointers are considered "invalid values."
That said, I would be utterly astonished if any actual implementation of memcpy
broke if you did this, since most of the intuitive implementations I can think of would do nothing at all if you said to copy zero bytes.
与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…