From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-15405-listarch-gdb-patches=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 9960 invoked by alias); 13 May 2002 13:30:36 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 9897 invoked from network); 13 May 2002 13:30:31 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.112.240.27)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 May 2002 13:30:31 -0000
Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id D61803E10; Mon, 13 May 2002 09:30:40 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <3CDFC000.5000504@cygnus.com>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 06:30:00 -0000
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0rc1) Gecko/20020429
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@is.elta.co.il>,
	Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFA] Fix gdb/277 by separating types
References: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1020513081759.8317L-100000@is>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00453.txt.bz2

> On Sun, 12 May 2002, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> 
> 
>> This patch requires my previous cleanup patch.  It fixes a test in
>> gdb.c++/method.exp for GCC 3.x/stabs+, and closes gdb/277.
> 
> 
> A minor comment about style:
> 
> 
>>        type = (struct type *) xmalloc (sizeof (struct type));
>> +      memset ((char *) (type), 0, sizeof (struct type));
> 
> 
> Why the cast to `char *' in the first argument of memset?  I thought, 
> since we require an ISO C compiler, we shouldn't need those anymore.
> (There are more casts like that in the patch.)

Yes.

> The same goes for casting the return value of xmalloc, I think.

Yep.  That one can have merit though.

I personally use that XMALLOC macro (yes a macro I like :-).  Having had 
to chase a few problems with memset VS void* in regbuf, I'm now (sadly) 
tempted to #define MEMSET(VAR, VAL) memeset (&(VAR), (VAL), sizeof 
(VAR)).  Rest assured, neither are in GDB's coding standard.

Andrew