Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 13:43:32 -0600 From: Nate Williams <nate@rocky.sri.MT.net> To: "Garrett A. Wollman" <wollman@lcs.mit.edu> Cc: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>, ache@astral.msk.su, Kai.Vorma@hut.fi, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: tail dumps core Message-ID: <199510101943.NAA22092@rocky.sri.MT.net> In-Reply-To: <9510101901.AA10410@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu> References: <9510101735.AA10192@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu> <199510101836.LAA10827@phaeton.artisoft.com> <9510101901.AA10410@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Garrett A. Wollman writes:
> <<On Tue, 10 Oct 1995 11:36:34 -0700 (MST), Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> said:
>
[ Non-portability of bzero and calloc ]
{ Code deleted }
So, what's your point? Other than some comments in this set of lines
> memset(&i, 0, sizeof i);
> if (i == 0) {
> printf("your machine is normal\n");
> } else {
> printf("your machine is really weird, but allowed by the"
> " C standard\n");
> }
which implies that memset doesn't have to set an integer to all zeros,
what's the problem? How does the C standard allow for memseting an int
to be non-zero?
Also, you made the assertion that calloc() is almost never necessary. I
charge you to backup that statement, since I often use structures which
I must explicity zero out all of the members, and using calloc() and/or
malloc/memset is a big performance win compared to zero'ing out every
single member of the struct.
Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199510101943.NAA22092>