This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: PATCH: Remove unnecessary zero-initializations
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: Elena Zannoni <ezannoni at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 18:52:32 -0500
- Subject: Re: PATCH: Remove unnecessary zero-initializations
- References: <20021111001910.GA17944@nevyn.them.org> <3DCF2D6E.2030407@redhat.com> <20021111042326.GA7554@nevyn.them.org> <15874.23103.576384.830376@localhost.redhat.com>
Yep.
On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 06:46:07PM -0500, Elena Zannoni wrote:
>
> [holiday mailbox cleaning...] Did you commit this?
>
> Elena
>
>
>
> Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
> > On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 11:09:18PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > > >Currently, thirteen files which provide a target_ops explicitly initialize
> > > >members they don't support to NULL. I plan to delete a number of these
> > > >methods, and rather than making sure I got all the necessary target files
> > > >each time I just wanted to delete the unnecessary lines up-front. All of
> > > >these are called-once functions initializing a statically or globally
> > > >declared object; C will guarantee zero-initialization for us. And several
> > > >of the functions explicitly called memset anyway.
> > > >
> > > >Besides, this way grepping for .to_require_attach\ = will only find targets
> > > >which define it to something useful.
> > > >
> > > >I'll commit this tomorrow unless someone sees a problem with it.
> > > >
> > > >Note1: remote-st.c hasn't been compilable in a while; m68*-tandem-* is
> > > >probably a good candidate for the hitlist. From a glance it looks like it
> > > >has been broken since the HP merge added the NULL assignments I'm removing,
> > > >which is about three years now I think.
> > > >
> > > >Note2: The DONT_USE member of struct target_ops can go now.
> > >
> > > The fact that 13 files were doing it should suggest that it was
> > > intentional. Might want to wait a bit longer while someone dregs up the
> > > history.
> >
> > Well, to me the fact that those thirteen files were doing it implies
> > it's a leftover. Look at them; the two win* one are cut-pasted from
> > inftarg.c; the others (except for sol-thread.c) are cut-pasted from
> > remote.c. And neither of those has the zeros.
> >
> > But it doesn't cost me anything to wait, except for slowing down the
> > progress on the fork patches :) I'll give it a few days.
> >
> > --
> > Daniel Jacobowitz
> > MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
>
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer