| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Avoid unecessary MemSet call (src/backend/utils/cache/relcache.c) |
| Date: | 2022-05-17 23:22:20 |
| Message-ID: | 1636334.1652829740@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I found, I believe, a serious problem of incorrect usage of the memset api.
> Historically, people have relied on using memset or MemSet, using the
> variable name as an argument for the sizeof.
> While it works correctly, for arrays, when it comes to pointers to
> structures, things go awry.
You'll have to convince people that any of these places are in
fact incorrect. Everyone who's used C for any length of time
is well aware of the possibility of getting sizeof() wrong in
this sort of context, and I think we've been careful about it.
Also, as a stylistic matter I think it's best to write
"memset(&x, 0, sizeof(x))" where we can. Replacing sizeof(x)
with sizeof(some type name) has its own risks of error, and
therefore is not automatically an improvement.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ranier Vilela | 2022-05-18 00:08:59 | Re: Avoid unecessary MemSet call (src/backend/utils/cache/relcache.c) |
| Previous Message | Justin Pryzby | 2022-05-17 23:18:55 | Re: Avoid unecessary MemSet call (src/backend/utils/cache/relcache.c) |