Re: PATCH: Remove unnecessary zero-initializations

[Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@redhat.com>]

[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