Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 10 Oct 1995 22:56:27 +0300 (MSK)
From:      =?KOI8-R?Q?=E1=CE=C4=D2=C5=CA_=FE=C5=D2=CE=CF=D7?= (aka Andrey A. Chernov, Black Mage) <ache@astral.msk.su>
To:        Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>, "Garrett A. Wollman" <wollman@lcs.mit.edu>
Cc:        Kai.Vorma@hut.fi, current@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: tail dumps core
Message-ID:  <Qkh_iUmuYc@ache.dialup.demos.ru>
In-Reply-To: <199510101836.LAA10827@phaeton.artisoft.com>; from Terry Lambert at Tue, 10 Oct 1995 11:36:34 -0700 (MST)
References:  <199510101836.LAA10827@phaeton.artisoft.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <199510101836.LAA10827@phaeton.artisoft.com> Terry Lambert
    writes:

>> > Why not use 'calloc' instead? bzero isn't portable way.
>> > Theoretically 'calloc' can do some internal optimization of zeroing.
>> 
>> Neither of these are portable unless the array being cleared is
>> composed of characters.  There is almost never any reason to use
>> calloc(3).

>I don't understand where you see a non-portability.  Can you please
>explain?  Thanks.


I mean not action (zeroing) but interface used only.
bzero isn't POSIX function. calloc is.

-- 
Andrey A. Chernov        : And I rest so composedly,  /Now, in my bed,
ache@astral.msk.su       : That any beholder  /Might fancy me dead -
FidoNet: 2:5020/230.3    : Might start at beholding me,  /Thinking me dead.
RELCOM Team,FreeBSD Team :         E.A.Poe         From "For Annie" 1849



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Qkh_iUmuYc>