[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: memset (0, 0, 0);
From: |
Daniel Jacobowitz |
Subject: |
Re: memset (0, 0, 0); |
Date: |
Fri, 4 Apr 2003 10:04:21 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.1i |
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
> object
>
> 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?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
- memset (0, 0, 0);, Joern Rennecke, 2003/04/04
- Re: memset (0, 0, 0);,
Daniel Jacobowitz <=
- Re: memset (0, 0, 0);, Andrew Cagney, 2003/04/04
- Re: memset (0, 0, 0);, Andreas Schwab, 2003/04/04
- Re: memset (0, 0, 0);, Petr Vandrovec, 2003/04/04
- RE: memset (0, 0, 0);, Thomas,Stephen, 2003/04/07
- Re: memset (0, 0, 0);, Wolfram Gloger, 2003/04/07
- Re: memset (0, 0, 0);, Daniel Jacobowitz, 2003/04/07
- Re: memset (0, 0, 0);, Geoff Keating, 2003/04/07
- RE: memset (0, 0, 0);, Thomas,Stephen, 2003/04/07