This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: memset (0, 0, 0);
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista 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, 4 Apr 2003 10:04:21 -0500
- Subject: Re: memset (0, 0, 0);
- References: <3E8D9C30.E2CA766E@superh.com>
On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 03:52:32PM +0100, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> On some processors, memset can be implemented more efficiently
> when you always read - and possibly also write back - the first
> memory word contained partially or in whole in the to-be-modified
> 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?
Where is it that GDB does this?
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer