On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, Brandon Casey wrote:
> Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > So when claiming flexibility for the compiler to better optimize things,
> > please make sure this is really what is happening through assembly dump
> > inspection.
>
> I didn't claim the compiler _would_ do a better job at optimizing if
> memset wasn't used (though my expectation is that it would do no worse,
> and I don't have assembly dumps to back that up).
My point is that such expectation might not always be true.
> I suggested it could
> give the compiler more flexibility. In some strange way you seem to
> agree with me and have given 3 examples of ways that compilers may
> optimize static initialization. :)
Actually the first example was a case of making things worse.
> Anyway, this is a nothing patch. There is no functional change.
> If readability is not improved, it is not worth applying. Of course, I
> don't plan on scanning through and converting all of the existing assignments
> which use { 0, } to use memset. I find a single step declaration/initialization
> simpler. Not sure why that seems to be the case in the git source for simple
> variables but not structures.
... because of that possible gcc making things worse I mentioned.
Nicolas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
