Do strncpy/memcpy/memmove copy the data byte by byte or in another efficiently way?

Question

As we know, in a multi-bytes word computer such as x86/x86_64, it is more efficiently to copy/move a big bulk of memory word by word (4 or 8 bytes per step), than to do so byte by byte.

I'm curious about which way would strncpy/memcpy/memmove do things in, and how do they deal with memory word alignment.

char buf_A[8], buf_B[8];

// I often want to code as this
*(double*)buf_A = *(double*)buf_B;

//in stead of this
strcpy(buf_A, buf_B);
// but it worsen the readability of my codes.

Answer 1

I think all of the opinions and advices on this page are reasonable, but I decide to try a little experiment.

To my surprise, the fastest method isn't the one we expected theoretically.

I tried some code as following.

#include <cstring>
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <chrono>

using std::string;
using std::chrono::system_clock;

inline void mycopy( double* a, double* b, size_t s ) {
   while ( s > 0 ) {
      *a++ = *b++;
      --s;
   }
};

// to make sure that every bits have been changed
bool assertAllTrue( unsigned char* a, size_t s ) {
   unsigned char v = 0xFF;
   while ( s > 0 ) {
      v &= *a++;
      --s;
   }
   return v == 0xFF;
};

int main( int argc, char** argv ) {
   alignas( 16 ) char bufA[512], bufB[512];
   memset( bufB, 0xFF, 512 );  // to prevent strncpy from stoping prematurely
   system_clock::time_point startT;

   memset( bufA, 0, sizeof( bufA ) );
   startT = system_clock::now();
   for ( int i = 0; i < 1024 * 1024; ++i )
      strncpy( bufA, bufB, sizeof( bufA ) );
   std::cout << "strncpy:" << ( system_clock::now() - startT ).count()
             << ", AllTrue:" << std::boolalpha
             << assertAllTrue( ( unsigned char* )bufA, sizeof( bufA ) )
             << std::endl;

   memset( bufA, 0, sizeof( bufA ) );
   startT = system_clock::now();
   for ( int i = 0; i < 1024 * 1024; ++i )
      memcpy( bufA, bufB, sizeof( bufA ) );
   std::cout << "memcpy:" << ( system_clock::now() - startT ).count()
             << ", AllTrue:" << std::boolalpha
             << assertAllTrue( ( unsigned char* )bufA, sizeof( bufA ) )
             << std::endl;

   memset( bufA, 0, sizeof( bufA ) );
   startT = system_clock::now();
   for ( int i = 0; i < 1024 * 1024; ++i )
      memmove( bufA, bufB, sizeof( bufA ) );
   std::cout << "memmove:" << ( system_clock::now() - startT ).count()
             << ", AllTrue:" << std::boolalpha
             << assertAllTrue( ( unsigned char* )bufA, sizeof( bufA ) )
             << std::endl;

   memset( bufA, 0, sizeof( bufA ) );
   startT = system_clock::now();
   for ( int i = 0; i < 1024 * 1024; ++i )
      mycopy( ( double* )bufA, ( double* )bufB, sizeof( bufA ) / sizeof( double ) );
   std::cout << "mycopy:" << ( system_clock::now() - startT ).count()
             << ", AllTrue:" << std::boolalpha
             << assertAllTrue( ( unsigned char* )bufA, sizeof( bufA ) )
             << std::endl;

   return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}

The result (one of many similar results):

strncpy:52840919, AllTrue:true

memcpy:57630499, AllTrue:true

memmove:57536472, AllTrue:true

mycopy:57577863, AllTrue:true

It looks like:

1. memcpy, memmove, and my own method have similar result;
2. What does strncpy do magic, so that it is the best one even faster than memcpy?

Is it funny?