From: Brandon Casey <casey@nrlssc.navy.mil>
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 20:30:53 GMT
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] Replace memset(0) with static initialization where possible
Message-ID: <OyFvwSFhjVWBmuGctgXwtQ_h6P80_eGa3xtRRd1nLTP-oCvddNO_TQ@cipher.nrlssc.navy.mil>
In-Reply-To: <20081009191727.GY8203@spearce.org>

Shawn O. Pearce wrote:
> Brandon Casey <casey@nrlssc.navy.mil> wrote:
>> Is there interest in a patch like this?
> 
> I think this is not a worthwhile change.
>  
>> "Possible" benefits:
>>
>>   1) more concise, so it improves readability in most cases
> 
> I'm not sure.
> 
> Maybe I'm just too used to reading memset(&foo, 0, sizeof(foo)),

Well, I don't have to get the sizeof(foo) part right if I use {0,}.

> but {{0},} seems very difficult to read.

It wouldn't be the first usage in the git source.

>>   2) gives compiler more flexibility when optimizing
> 
> Shouldn't a good C compiler notice something like a memset and inline
> it when possible?  They already can inline strlen on a constant.

I'm sure most of them do.

>> Drawbacks:
>>
>>   1) many lines touched for no functional change
> 
> That's a pretty big drawback.
> 
> What happens when a struct gets a struct as its first member?
> Do all the {0,} inits for it have to change to {{0,},} ?

yes, if you don't want compiler warnings.

-brandon