This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc 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] |
On 23 Jun 2016 17:05, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 06/23/2016 04:49 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 04:40:42PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> Over all, this decreases the realism of the tests because > >> it ensures that freshly allocated memory has a well-defined > >> bit pattern. It also causes malloc to take internal paths > >> different from regular application usage, and therefore > >> reduces malloc test coverage. > > > > The well-defined bit pattern is more likely to catch any bad tests > > though, which might make it valuable. > > It could also cover up bugs which would otherwise be visible with fresh > allocations which contain only zeros. while certainly true, i think this is much less common of an edge case. code that happens to work because it happened to get zero-ed memory is, in my experience, way less common than code that happens to work because it happened to get garbage initially. -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |