On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 10:44:50AM +0000, PÃdraig Brady wrote: >On 23/11/10 18:02, Andreas Dilger wrote: >> On 2010-11-23, at 07:45, walter harms wrote: >>> Maybe we can convince the gcc people to make 0 padding default. That will not solve the problems for other compilers but when they claim "works like gcc" we can press then to support this also. I can imagine that this will close some other subtle leaks also. >> >> It makes the most sense to tackle this at the GCC level, since the added overhead of doing memset(0) on the whole struct may be non-trivial for commonly-used and/or large structures. Since GCC is already explicitly zeroing the _used_ fields in the struct, it can much more easily determine whether there is padding in the structure, and zero those few bytes as needed. > >Zero padding structs is part of C90. Details here: >http://www.pixelbeat.org/programming/gcc/auto_init.html Nope. > >gcc doesn't zero pad when _all_ elements are specified. > That is what gcc does, not what C standard specifies. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
