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>