From owner-freebsd-current  Tue Oct 10 11:39:59 1995
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id LAA29449
          for current-outgoing; Tue, 10 Oct 1995 11:39:59 -0700
Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id LAA29444
          for <current@freebsd.org>; Tue, 10 Oct 1995 11:39:56 -0700
Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id LAA10827; Tue, 10 Oct 1995 11:36:34 -0700
From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Message-Id: <199510101836.LAA10827@phaeton.artisoft.com>
Subject: Re: tail dumps core
To: wollman@lcs.mit.edu (Garrett A. Wollman)
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 11:36:34 -0700 (MST)
Cc: ache@astral.msk.su, Kai.Vorma@hut.fi, current@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <9510101735.AA10192@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu> from "Garrett A. Wollman" at Oct 10, 95 01:35:06 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 508       
Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

> > 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.


					Terry Lambert
					terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.