Unfortunately, the program was very slow.
Your first solution is wrong for a very simple reason: it reads the entire source file in memory, then write it entirely.
Files have been invented (perhaps in the 1960s) to handle data that don't fit in memory (and has to be in some "slower" storage, at that time hard disks or drums, or perhaps even tapes). And they have always been copied by "chunks".
The current (Unix-like) definition of file (as a sequence of bytes than is open-ed, read, write-n, close-d) is more recent than 1960s. Probably the late 1970s or early 1980s. And it comes with the notion of streams (which has been standardized in C with <stdio.h> and in C++ with std::fstream).
So your program has to work (like every file copying program today) for files much bigger than the available memory.You need some loop to read some buffer, write it, and repeat.
The size of the buffer is very important. If it is too small, you'll make too many IO operations (e.g. system calls). If it is too big, IO might be inefficient or even not work.
In practice, the buffer should today be much less than your RAM, typically several megabytes.
Your code is more C like than C++ like because it uses fopen. Here is a possible solution in C with <stdio.h>. If you code in genuine C++, adapt it to <fstream>:
void copyfile(const char*destpath, const char*srcpath) {
// experiment with various buffer size
#define MYBUFFERSIZE (4*1024*1024) /* four megabytes */
char* buf = malloc(MYBUFFERSIZE);
if (!buf) { perror("malloc buf"); exit(EXIT_FAILURE); };
FILE* filsrc = fopen(srcpath, "r");
if (!filsrc) { perror(srcpath); exit(EXIT_FAILURE); };
FILE* fildest = fopen(destpath, "w");
if (!fildest) { perror(destpath); exit(EXIT_FAILURE); };
for (;;) {
size_t rdsiz = fread(buf, 1, MYBUFFERSIZE, filsrc);
if (rdsiz==0) // end of file
break;
else if (rdsiz<0) // input error
{ perror("fread"); exit(EXIT_FAILURE); };
size_t wrsiz = fwrite(buf, rdsiz, 1, fildest);
if (wrsiz != 1) { perror("fwrite"); exit(EXIT_FAILURE); };
}
if (fclose(filsrc)) { perror("fclose source"); exit(EXIT_FAILURE); };
if (fclose(fildest)) { perror("fclose dest"); exit(EXIT_FAILURE); };
}
For simplicity, I am reading the buffer in byte components and writing it as a whole. A better solution is to handle partial writes.
Apparently dst_ << src_.rdbuf(); might do some loop internally (I have to admit I never used it and did not understand that at first; thanks to Melpopene for correcting me). But the actual buffer size matters a big lot. The two other answers (by John Swinck and by melpomene) focus on that rdbuf() thing. My answer focus on explaining why copying can be slow when you do it like in your first solution, and why you need to loop and why the buffer size matters a big lot.
If you really care about performance, you need to understand implementation details and operating system specific things. So read Operating systems: three easy pieces. Then understand how, on your particular operating system, the various buffering is done (there are several layers of buffers involved: your program buffers, the standard stream buffers, the kernel buffers, the page cache). Don't expect your C++ standard library to buffer in an optimal fashion.
Don't even dream of coding in standard C++ (without operating system specific stuff) an optimal or very fast copying function. If performance matters, you need to dive in OS specific details.
On Linux, you might use time(1), oprofile(1), perf(1) to measure your program's performance. You could use strace(1) to understand the various system calls involved (see syscalls(2) for a list). You might even code (in a Linux specific way) using directly the open(2), read(2), write(2), close(2) and perhaps readahead(2), mmap(2), posix_fadvise(2), madvise(2), sendfile(2) system calls.
At last, large file copying are limited by disk IO (which is the bottleneck). So even by spending days in optimizing OS specific code, you won't win much. The hardware is the limitation. You probably should code what is the most readable code for you (it might be that dst_ << src_.rdbuf(); thing which is looping) or use some library providing file copy. You might win a tiny amount of performance by tuning the various buffer sizes.
If the operator translates to looping for me, why should I do it myself?
Because you have no explicit guarantee on the actual buffering done (at various levels). As I explained, buffering matters for performance. Perhaps the actual performance is not that critical for you, and the ordinary settings of your system and standard library (and their default buffers sizes) might be enough.
PS. Your question contains at least 3 different questions (but related ones). I don't find it clear (so downvoted it), because I did not understand what is the most relevant one. Is it : performance? robustness? meaning of dst_ << src_.rdbuf();? Why is the first solution slow? How to copy large files quickly?
