From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26441 invoked by alias); 4 Apr 2003 15:16:38 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 26418 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2003 15:16:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (207.219.125.105) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Apr 2003 15:16:38 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A3A12B23; Fri, 4 Apr 2003 10:16:35 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3E8DA1D3.5080308@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 15:16:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030223 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joern Rennecke Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com, newlib@sources.redhat.com, bug-glibc@gnu.org, stephen.thomas@superh.com, sean.mcgoogan@superh.com Subject: Re: memset (0, 0, 0); References: <3E8D9C30.E2CA766E@superh.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00045.txt.bz2 > 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? I'm not sure why you're refering to GDB here. GDB assumes ISO C and hence should never use memset in ways that violate the ISO C spec. If it is, then someone gets to fix it. Andrew