From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: build failures from gcc warning about memset Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 23:04:48 +0100 Message-ID: References: <2bc5f8210910251016xc5b7a7t18c0bb16f4e7cbf1@mail.gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1256512329 7829 80.91.229.12 (25 Oct 2009 23:12:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 23:12:09 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel To: Julian Graham Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Oct 26 00:12:02 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1N2CFl-0006nD-LV for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 00:12:01 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:32841 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1N2CFl-0008Vq-2A for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 25 Oct 2009 19:12:01 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1N2CFf-0008Sn-LQ for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 25 Oct 2009 19:11:55 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1N2CFa-0008MR-Oj for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 25 Oct 2009 19:11:54 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=60068 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1N2CFa-0008MM-GE for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 25 Oct 2009 19:11:50 -0400 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com ([64.74.157.62]:47164 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1N2CFa-0000c4-7w for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 25 Oct 2009 19:11:50 -0400 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1420786183; Sun, 25 Oct 2009 19:11:50 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=cUPWixzd3JZCwJH8Lh3Rx1zLai8=; b=Nvps6F 53PH4hQ5jUQ9k5/Ip/8+V6CZdwnjY6d5HYjm+t73snGkfgQWVyMiq5OEsb70cZto 76Ro8bSCT/h0Ihry51ox6CgNMetfOgYufT3JrWwAwbMVB3gcBlcQSLYZkMureVfn VI4jzgGPFeory8wI7hKiFKPwr71qE9QywZxKI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=mAOb+1Ighjiux/r0P8cL5W/roL/0ZjDV WQVsw5ObaM/lKfzgDz6YcFpVmdrcwbeDvKh4Iv32dn2p/+avawcgFLBC2gUSQHMU vzEQoWHwO/x7+Rd/2dR7YOJ5jVEZOGDjV2AP07DA8tp8FKHLy5vAFnD4ltXIp9Lv mhBYxp5fqcs= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0321C86182; Sun, 25 Oct 2009 19:11:48 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from unquote (unknown [88.0.167.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 41BAF86181; Sun, 25 Oct 2009 19:11:46 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <2bc5f8210910251016xc5b7a7t18c0bb16f4e7cbf1@mail.gmail.com> (Julian Graham's message of "Sun, 25 Oct 2009 13:16:40 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.92 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: C5D36C10-C1BB-11DE-B8F9-A67CBBB5EC2E-02397024!a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:9573 Archived-At: Hi Julian, On Sun 25 Oct 2009 18:16, Julian Graham writes: > --- a/libguile/gc-malloc.c > +++ b/libguile/gc-malloc.c > @@ -206,7 +206,8 @@ void * > scm_gc_calloc (size_t size, const char *what) > { > void *ptr = scm_gc_malloc (size, what); > - memset (ptr, 0x0, size); > + if (size) > + memset (ptr, 0x0, size); > return ptr; > } Actually scm_gc_malloc will give you back a zeroed array, afaik, as GC_malloc does. The patch looks fine but if we can rely on scm_gc_malloc's new behavior, we don't need the memset at all. Thoughts from Ludovic would be nice :) A -- http://wingolog.org/