This is the mail archive of the gdb@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: memset (0, 0, 0);

From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at redhat dot com>
To: Joern Rennecke <joern dot rennecke at superh dot com>
Cc: gdb at sources dot redhat dot com, newlib at sources dot redhat dot com,bug-glibc at gnu dot org, stephen dot thomas at superh dot com,sean dot mcgoogan at superh dot com
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 10:16:35 -0500
Subject: Re: memset (0, 0, 0);
References: <3E8D9C30.E2CA766E@superh.com>

This conflicts with gdb usage of memset (0, 0, 0); in some places.
There are three practical questions here:
- should gdb use this idiom?
- should all target-specific variants of newlib's memset implement it?
- should all target-specific variants of glibc's memset implement it?

I'm not sure why you're refering to GDB here. GDB assumes ISO C and hence should never use memset in ways that violate the ISO C spec. If it is, then someone gets to fix it.

Andrew

References:
- memset (0, 0, 0);
  - From: Joern Rennecke

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]