Re: PATCH: Remove unnecessary zero-initializations

Elena Zannoni
2002-12-19T23:41:58Z

[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